On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:19:38PM +0200, Martin Storsjö wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, Diego Biurrun wrote: > > >None of them are specific to the YASM assembler. > >--- > > > >"x86-asm" it is. > > Kinda ok with me, but I want to hear acks/nacks from others as well. > > For the configure option name, it feels like the least bad option to me, but > it feels a bit more clunky when used in ifdefs in the code.
Here are some comments from IRC: 16:54 <@DonDiego> lu_zero: https://patches.libav.org/patch/62859/ - wbs invited more comments from others there 16:55 <@lu_zero> DonDiego: I'd bikeshed for intel-asm 16:55 <@DonDiego> .. because .. 16:56 <@DonDiego> ? 16:56 <@lu_zero> iirc yasm is using the intel syntax while gas is using at&t ? 16:57 <@lu_zero> anyway I do not have a strong opinion about it 16:58 <@DonDiego> actually, yasm implements the nasm macro language 16:58 <@lu_zero> ah then nasm could be the other naming to throw in as alternative :) 16:58 <@DonDiego> it is certainly better than yasm 17:00 <@lu_zero> I guess nasm might be less strange looking 16:46 <@DonDiego> elenril: https://patches.libav.org/patch/62859/ 17:02 <@elenril> i have no strong feelings about the asm one 17:02 <@elenril> x86-asm works fine for me 17:44 <@DonDiego> koda: do you have an opinion on https://patches.libav.org/patch/62859/ ? 17:47 <@koda> not really, the dash in the name does look clunky but i don't have any proper alternative So x86-asm or nasm are the alternatives. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
