flac dev - Mar 2014 - PATCH: OS SSE support detection, version 2

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>> part 1: fixes
>>
>> part 2: new code
>>
>> Any comments?
>
> Applied cpu_part2.patch. Thanks!
Thanks. I hope that this code will help to avoid "bug" reports
such as http://sourceforge.net/p/flac/bugs/409/ (it seems that
the author of this report compiled FLAC without --enable-sse option).

OTOH, SSE support is unavailable only in Win95 and WinNT. Also,
as Martijn van Beurden pointed out, flac.exe doesn't support Win95
(and also 98/Me) since version 1.3.0, and nobody complained about it.

Maybe it's better and simpler to change configure.ac so that --enable-sse
is on by default if the target OS is Windows?



About part 1:does it have any problems? I can split it into several patches
(1 fix = 1 patch) or explain the changes in it in detail.

lvqcl wrote:
> Thanks. I hope that this code will help to avoid "bug" reports
> such as http://sourceforge.net/p/flac/bugs/409/ (it seems that
> the author of this report compiled FLAC without --enable-sse option).
Oh, wow, I didn't even realise that the sourceforge bug tracker
was still being used. I'll need to go through that lot.
 
> OTOH, SSE support is unavailable only in Win95 and WinNT. Also,
> as Martijn van Beurden pointed out, flac.exe doesn't support Win95
> (and also 98/Me) since version 1.3.0, and nobody complained about it.
> 
> Maybe it's better and simpler to change configure.ac so that
--enable-sse
> is on by default if the target OS is Windows?
Thats not a bad idea. In fact its probably even beter to reverse the
logic so the enable-sse is the default which can be disabled with
--disable-sse.
> About part 1:does it have any problems? I can split it into several patches
> (1 fix = 1 patch) or explain the changes in it in detail.
I didn't apply patch1 because I mis-read your comment here:

    http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2014-March/004582.html

So, for the patches in this email:

    http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2014-March/004577.html

Should I apply patch2?

Should I revert patch1 which has already been applied?

Cheers,
Erik
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/

On 03/14/14 10:15 PM, lvqcl wrote:
> Maybe it's better and simpler to change configure.ac so that
--enable-sse
> is on by default if the target OS is Windows?
Why not just reverse the --enable-sse so it is the default and if anyone 
really needs to support something without kernel support for sse they 
can configure with --disable-sse. Seems most everything supports sse at 
this point in time,
Dave

Dave Yeo wrote:
> On 03/14/14 10:15 PM, lvqcl wrote:
> > Maybe it's better and simpler to change configure.ac so that
--enable-sse
> > is on by default if the target OS is Windows?
> 
> Why not just reverse the --enable-sse so it is the default and if anyone 
> really needs to support something without kernel support for sse they 
> can configure with --disable-sse. Seems most everything supports sse at 
> this point in time,
Yep, just did that, made sure it worked and pushed commit 9863998c99 :-).

Erik
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>> About part 1:does it have any problems? I can split it into several
patches
>> (1 fix = 1 patch) or explain the changes in it in detail.
>
> I didn't apply patch1 because I mis-read your comment here:
>
>     http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2014-March/004582.html
>
> So, for the patches in this email:
>
>     http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2014-March/004577.html
>
> Should I apply patch2?
>
> Should I revert patch1 which has already been applied?
First I wrote the patch to cpu.c and posted it here:
	http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2014-March/004576.html

Then I posted a second version of this patch (so the patch above is obsolete):
	http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2014-March/004577.html

This second version was split into two files:
  * the first part contains fixes ( CALLBACK -> WINAPI, updated URLs in
comments,
    "r"(sse) -> "0"(sse), etc)
  * and the second part contains a code for SSE support detection when a
compiler
    is MinGW/GCC and target OS is Win32.

The latest change in configure.ac makes this second part mostly useless
because by default it will be thrown away by preprocessor.

So, about the patches from
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2014-March/004577.html

   * The patch cpu_part1.patch should be applied;

   * The patch cpu_part2.patch (already applied) is almost useless now, so why
keep it?
     It can be useful only for those who want to use MinGW/GCC to compile
Win95-compatible
     libFLAC.dll or Win95/WinNT4 compatible flac.exe. Do these people exist?

op 15-03-14 06:15, lvqcl schreef:
> I hope that this code will help to avoid "bug" reports such as 
> http://sourceforge.net/p/flac/bugs/409/
It's even mentioned in the FAQ, so it's really nog a bug, not 
even a "bug" :)

http://xiph.org/flac/faq.html#tools__different_sizes