| 1 |
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:20:10 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Dnia 2015-01-26, o godz. 12:41:00 |
| 5 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 00:35:39 +0100 |
| 8 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > > Title: CPU_FLAGS_X86 introduction |
| 11 |
> > > Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> |
| 12 |
> > > Content-Type: text/plain |
| 13 |
> > > Posted: 2015-01-xx |
| 14 |
> > > Revision: 1 |
| 15 |
> > > News-Item-Format: 1.0 |
| 16 |
> > > Display-If-Keyword: amd64 ~amd64 x86 ~x86 |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > but.... why ? |
| 19 |
> > will you write another news item for other arches ? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Are there other arches using CPU_FLAGS_X86? ;) But seriously, the item |
| 22 |
> is quite arch-specific. Other arches are likely to have kinda specific |
| 23 |
> flags with rules for choosing them, another script etc. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I think it is better to have it done all in one pass: even if there is |
| 26 |
no script, it is just as good as it is today. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
My concern is: This will clutter e.g. ffmpeg ebuild by having two ways |
| 29 |
to pass cpu flags, depending on the arch, and will give a kind of silly |
| 30 |
output with "altivec" or "neon" as standard useflags but x86 cpu flags |
| 31 |
as USE_EXPAND. This is too much inconsistent to me. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> > > Most of the flag |
| 35 |
> > > names match /proc/cpuinfo names, with the notable exception of |
| 36 |
> > > SSE3 which is called 'pni' in /proc/cpuinfo (please also do not |
| 37 |
> > > confuse it with distinct SSSE3). |
| 38 |
> > |
| 39 |
> > IMHO this is too much into details but I don't really mind. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> I just recall it's a frequent issue, people missing SSE3 and mixing it |
| 42 |
> up with SSSE3. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Yep; I don't think this kind of obvious and not new warning belongs to a |
| 45 |
_news_ item but that's up to you. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Alexis. |
Archives