On 2014-09-08 15:55, David Henningsson wrote: > > > On 2014-04-24 18:50, Peter Meerwald wrote: >> From: Peter Meerwald <p.meerwald at bct-electronic.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Meerwald <pmeerw at pmeerw.net> >> --- >> src/tests/cpu-mix-test.c | 16 +++++----------- >> src/tests/cpu-sconv-test.c | 16 +++++----------- >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/tests/cpu-mix-test.c b/src/tests/cpu-mix-test.c >> index a1a16d4..1808556 100644 >> --- a/src/tests/cpu-mix-test.c >> +++ b/src/tests/cpu-mix-test.c >> @@ -27,8 +27,7 @@ >> >> /* Only ARM NEON has mix tests, so disable the related functions for >> other >> * architectures for now to avoid compiler warnings about unused >> functions. */ >> -#if defined (__arm__) && defined (__linux__) >> -#ifdef HAVE_NEON >> +#if defined (__arm__) && defined (__linux__) && defined (HAVE_NEON) > > > Since the line > #if defined (__arm__) && defined (__linux__) && defined (HAVE_NEON) > > gets repeated a lot, it makes me wonder if we could just do a > > #if defined (__arm__) && defined (__linux__) && defined (HAVE_NEON) > #define HAVE_ARM_LINUX_NEON > #else > #undef HAVE_ARM_LINUX_NEON > #endif > > ...instead. Not sure if HAVE_NEON could ever be defined without __arm__ > either? This seems to have remained unchanged in v2, and you did not comment on it either? -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. https://launchpad.net/~diwic
