Hi, On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:34:03PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 08:50:17AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: >> > On 08/08/2012 02:42 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote: >> > > --- >> > > libavcodec/x86/Makefile | 6 +++--- >> > > libavcodec/x86/{dsputil_yasm.asm => dsputil.asm} | 0 >> > > .../x86/{dsputilenc_yasm.asm => dsputilenc.asm} | 0 >> > > libavcodec/x86/{vc1dsp_yasm.asm => vc1dsp.asm} | 0 >> > > 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> > > rename libavcodec/x86/{dsputil_yasm.asm => dsputil.asm} (100%) >> > > rename libavcodec/x86/{dsputilenc_yasm.asm => dsputilenc.asm} (100%) >> > > rename libavcodec/x86/{vc1dsp_yasm.asm => vc1dsp.asm} (100%) >> > >> > Currently asm is always yasm/nasm so possibly we could drop them, Loren >> > pointed that we might end up generating objects with the same name so we >> > might avoid that by flattening >> > >> > .asm -> .asm.o >> > .c -> .c.o >> > >> > and so on, not sure if it is worthy. >> >> If at all, the rule should be amended for the .asm files. It would be >> very weird to not compile .c files into .o files anymore. >> >> Now it's true that some other names in that directory could also be >> improved and I may even get to it eventually, but can we please get >> this in as a first step and work our way up from there? Discussing >> what to do with the _mmx files should not delay renaming _yasm files. > > .. ping ..
Go ahead and push this one. Ronald _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
