On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 17:38, Matthias Saou wrote:
> Alexander Larsson wrote :
>
> > > > Well, SSE/SSE2 can help for graphic/video/audio applications.
> > > > But there .i686.rpm doesn't help you, either the application
> > > > selects whether to use SSE/SSE2 or not at runtime, or the packages
> > > > can have separate sse2 and normal libs in one package:
> > > > /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1
> > > > /usr/lib/sse2/libfoo.so.1
> > >
> > > This is "the proper way" for sure, but there are quite a few of (mostly
> > > multimedia) projects out there that hardcode MMX/SSE support at compile
> > > time, rather than enabling it at runtime when built for the x86
> > > architecture :-(
> >
> > Can't you build the same tarball twice? Once with sse2 enabled,
> > installing with LIBDIR=/usr/lib/sse2, and one in the normal way with
> > sse2 disabled.
>
> Is then having the same library twice, the regular one in /usr/lib and the
> SSE2 optimized one in /usr/lib/sse2, expected to "just work" at runtime? If
> so, I didn't know the existence of this, and will definitely look into it.
> What about MMX? Should one just simplify with SSE vs. non-SSE instead and
> put (non runtime) MMX optimized libs there too?
Thats what jakub said in his email. Its similar to /usr/lib/tls I guess.
Dunno if there is a special MMX dir, but yeah, otherwise you could put
those in sse2 i guess. (Only if the mmx performance difference actually
matters of course.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
alexl@xxxxxxxxxx alla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
He's a superhumanly strong ninja jungle king She's a cold-hearted extravagent
advertising executive with only herself to blame. They fight crime!
