| 1 |
Dnia 2015-01-26, o godz. 16:40:35 |
| 2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:20:10 +0100 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > Dnia 2015-01-26, o godz. 12:41:00 |
| 8 |
> > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > > On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 00:35:39 +0100 |
| 11 |
> > > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > > Title: CPU_FLAGS_X86 introduction |
| 14 |
> > > > Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> |
| 15 |
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain |
| 16 |
> > > > Posted: 2015-01-xx |
| 17 |
> > > > Revision: 1 |
| 18 |
> > > > News-Item-Format: 1.0 |
| 19 |
> > > > Display-If-Keyword: amd64 ~amd64 x86 ~x86 |
| 20 |
> > > |
| 21 |
> > > but.... why ? |
| 22 |
> > > will you write another news item for other arches ? |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > Are there other arches using CPU_FLAGS_X86? ;) But seriously, the item |
| 25 |
> > is quite arch-specific. Other arches are likely to have kinda specific |
| 26 |
> > flags with rules for choosing them, another script etc. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I think it is better to have it done all in one pass: even if there is |
| 29 |
> no script, it is just as good as it is today. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> My concern is: This will clutter e.g. ffmpeg ebuild by having two ways |
| 32 |
> to pass cpu flags, depending on the arch, and will give a kind of silly |
| 33 |
> output with "altivec" or "neon" as standard useflags but x86 cpu flags |
| 34 |
> as USE_EXPAND. This is too much inconsistent to me. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I understand your concern but unless someone's going to do the work for |
| 37 |
other arches, I doubt there's a point in waiting forever. Script is |
| 38 |
a minor issue, but someone has to figure out how various packages |
| 39 |
behave and what flags to use. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Best regards, |
| 43 |
Michał Górny |
Archives