search for: 004577

...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Then I posted a second version of this patch (so the patch above is obsolete...

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

op 11-03-14 15:57, Olivier Tristan schreef: > I may say something stupid but is this helpful ? > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6121792/how-to-check-if-a-cpu-supports-the-sse3-instruction-set That question on stackoverflow is about CPU support, the patch you replied to was about OS support. Because of the registers used (which must be saved and restored on a context switch), the

...l 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/