1 |
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:06:24 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
| > The issue with this is that $feature on amd64 is not exactly the |
4 |
| > same as $feature on x86. Would a better name be ${ARCH}_FEATURES or |
5 |
| > somesuch? That way there would be no confusion as to whether the |
6 |
| > cpuflags_sse2 USE flag did something for x86 or for amd64 or for |
7 |
| > both, since there'd be either x86_features_sse2 or |
8 |
| > amd64_features_sse2 or both. |
9 |
| |
10 |
| it would make handling in ebuilds a bit more complicated |
11 |
|
12 |
I'm not so sure. As I understand things based upon previous |
13 |
discussions on this issue, in most cases fancy optional assembly |
14 |
routines aren't compatible between x86 and amd64 and separate code is |
15 |
required for them anyway. |
16 |
|
17 |
| > It'd also make handling use masking much easier. |
18 |
| |
19 |
| why ? because there wouldnt be anything to mask ? |
20 |
|
21 |
I'm pretty sure that USE_EXPAND has to be the same across all profiles, |
22 |
so no, masking would still be required. I'm thinking more avoiding the |
23 |
cases where amd64 users set CPU_FEATURES="blah", and the fooplayer |
24 |
package only has blah code written for x86 CPUs. |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
28 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |