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Then I posted a second version of this patch (so the patch above is obsolete): http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2014-March/004577.html This second version was split into two files: * the first part contains fixes ( CALLBACK -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?
Erik de Castro Lopo
2014-Mar-15 07:39 UTC
[flac-dev] PATCH: OS SSE support detection, version 2
lvqcl wrote:> 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?It looks like I applied the the part1 patch and didn't apply the part2 patch. Please check commit 99d5154f436b389758d6a9020e448b8dbedb14bc. Cheers, Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:> It looks like I applied the the part1 patch and didn't apply the > part2 patch. > > Please check commit 99d5154f436b389758d6a9020e448b8dbedb14bc. >Well, it's part2 as far as i can see... My message contained 2 attached files: 1) cpu_part1.patch that begins with diff --git a/src/libFLAC/cpu.c b/src/libFLAC/cpu.c index 43592ad..ec390d5 100644 --- a/src/libFLAC/cpu.c +++ b/src/libFLAC/cpu.c @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ static const unsigned FLAC__CPUINFO_IA32_CPUID_EXTENDED_AMD_EXTMMX = 0x00400000; # define USE_TRY_CATCH_FLAVOR /* sigill_handler flavor resulted in several crash reports on win32 */ # ifdef USE_TRY_CATCH_FLAVOR # else - LONG CALLBACK sigill_handler_sse_os(EXCEPTION_POINTERS *ep) + LONG WINAPI sigill_handler_sse_os(EXCEPTION_POINTERS *ep) 2) and cpu_part2.patch that begins with diff --git a/src/libFLAC/cpu.c b/src/libFLAC/cpu.c index ec390d5..df97789 100644 --- a/src/libFLAC/cpu.c +++ b/src/libFLAC/cpu.c @@ -151,6 +151,23 @@ static const unsigned FLAC__CPUINFO_IA32_CPUID_EXTENDED_AMD_EXTMMX = 0x00400000; return EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_SEARCH; } # endif +# elif defined(_WIN32) && defined(__GNUC__) +# undef USE_FXSR_FLAVOR +# ifdef USE_FXSR_FLAVOR