| 1 |
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 12:58:21 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Any specific comments? I can handle x86 but I'd appreciate specific |
| 5 |
> arch teams replying about more exotic arches. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
+1 |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
i like the idea, but with a list of useflags that would get converted |
| 10 |
this could "reach" more people i think |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
profiles/base/use.mask should be organized enough to easily get such a |
| 13 |
list |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
however, i disagree with your rationale: asm for specific cpu |
| 16 |
extensions tend to be written and tested after given cpu is available, |
| 17 |
thus if you have a brand new cpu, you want to be notified if a package |
| 18 |
gains support for this new instruction set |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
the advantages I see is that for packages like mplayer or ffmpeg, it |
| 21 |
is a pain to distinguish what is a cpu extension, what is a codec or |
| 22 |
what is just a preference over an external lib; this would make it |
| 23 |
clear. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN would also make irrelevant flags for your |
| 26 |
architecture hidden and not just masked. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Alexis. |
Archives