Hi,
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Ronald S. Bultje" writes:
>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
"Ronald S. Bultje" writes:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Måns Rull
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> "Ronald S. Bultje" writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>> "Ronald S. Bultje" writes:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> inline_mmx_deps="inline_asm mmx"
> inline_sse_dep
"Ronald S. Bultje" writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Ronald S. Bultje" writes:
>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
inline_mmx_deps="inline_asm mmx"
inline_sse_deps="inline_mmx"
>>>
>>> If the user uses --disable-sse, thi
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> "Ronald S. Bultje" writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>> inline_mmx_deps="inline_asm mmx"
>>> inline_sse_deps="inline_mmx"
>>
>> If the user uses --disable-sse, this doesn't disable it here. I
>> suppose
"Ronald S. Bultje" writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> inline_mmx_deps="inline_asm mmx"
>> inline_sse_deps="inline_mmx"
>
> If the user uses --disable-sse, this doesn't disable it here. I
> suppose you might mean inline_sse_deps="inline_mmx sse"?
Right.
>
Justin Ruggles writes:
> I think we have several things to address:
>
> 1) detecting feature support in older compilers
> - we should validate (independent of our existing code) that these
> are the only features we need to detect and support for inline asm
> and for yasm/nasm
Th
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> inline_mmx_deps="inline_asm mmx"
> inline_sse_deps="inline_mmx"
If the user uses --disable-sse, this doesn't disable it here. I
suppose you might mean inline_sse_deps="inline_mmx sse"?
Other than that, looks good to me. I don't think w
Diego Biurrun writes:
> There are two capabilities that are interesting in this context:
>
> a) cpu
> b) compiler
> c) assembler
>
> Our current HAVE_FOO macros indicate a mix of everything. It seems to
> be the time to separate the capabilities. So first off, do we need all
> three capabilitie
On 07/30/2012 09:52 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Ronald S. Bultje" writes:
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Ronald S. Bultje
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 06:52:09AM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > "Ronald S. Bultje" writes:
> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Ronald S. Bultje
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Thu,
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> "Ronald S. Bultje" writes:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 03:42:24PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> On Thu, Jul
"Ronald S. Bultje" writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 03:42:24PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Thu,
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 03:42:24PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Ron
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 03:42:24PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> >>
>> >> discussion thread. We currentl
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 03:42:24PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> >>
> >> discussion thread. We currently use HAVE_SSSE3 and related macros to
> >> indicate that we want
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>>
>> discussion thread. We currently use HAVE_SSSE3 and related macros to
>> indicate that we want to compile these and that our compiler tools are
>> good enough to know
On 07/26/2012 11:53 PM, Martin Storsjö wrote:
> Currently avx has ssse3 as a dependency, where ssse3 is tested via
> inline asm while avx is tested via yasm. On MSVC the ssse3 inline asm
> test obviously fails, leading to HAVE_AVX=0, giving no AVX yasm either.
Clearing it would be good.
lu
--
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Diego Biurrun wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
discussion thread. We currently use HAVE_SSSE3 and related macros to
indicate that we want to compile these and that our compiler tools are
good enough to know what to do with it. As a r
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>
> discussion thread. We currently use HAVE_SSSE3 and related macros to
> indicate that we want to compile these and that our compiler tools are
> good enough to know what to do with it. As a result, we currently use
> HAVE_AVX aro
Hi guys,
discussion thread. We currently use HAVE_SSSE3 and related macros to
indicate that we want to compile these and that our compiler tools are
good enough to know what to do with it. As a result, we currently use
HAVE_AVX around all avx code (yasm only - we don't have any avx inline
asm), HA
20 matches
Mail list logo
