Carlos A. M. dos Santos
unixmania at gmail.com
Mon Oct 13 04:37:57 UTC 2008
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Michel Talon <talon at lpthe.jussieu.fr> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 12:42:08AM +1100, Sean Winn wrote:
>> Another option is to just fix the configure script so it doesn't break on
>> nasm > 1 (it's failing on the patch level check)
>> The attached file dropped in ports/multimedia/xvid/files/ seems to do the
>> trick, though I don't use xvid so I can't exactly test that the new version
>> assembles things properly.
>> Something done to configure.in should be sent upstream really.
> Yes, fixing the configure script should be done upstream, but it
> seems that the xvid project is somewhat asleep, so better use
> yasm in the Makefile on which there is control. As you note below,
> the problem comes because the configure script tries to use the -r
> option which yasm has but not nasm, so the xvid people had really
> yasm in view when doing their work.
>> --- configure.orig 2008-10-11 13:40:34.000000000 +1100
>> +++ configure 2008-10-11 13:43:14.000000000 +1100
>> @@ -4016,7 +4016,12 @@
>> if test "$ac_nasm" = "yes" ; then
>> echo "$as_me:$LINENO: checking for nasm patch version" >&5
>> echo $ECHO_N "checking for nasm patch version... $ECHO_C" >&6
>> - nasm_patch=`$nasm_prog -r | cut -d '.' -f 3 | cut -d ' ' -f 1`
>> + nasm_version=`$nasm_prog -v | cut -d '.' -f 1 | cut -d ' ' -f3`
>> + if test -n "$nasm_version" -a "$nasm_version" -gt 1; then
>> + nasm_patch=$minimum_nasm_patch_version
>> + else
>> + nasm_patch=`$nasm_prog -r | cut -d '.' -f 3 | cut -d ' ' -f 1`
>> + fi
>> if test -z $nasm_patch ; then
> By the way, the performance improvement obtained by using SSE
> instructions in the assembly files is astounding. I could not beleive
> what i was seeing, basically an x 4 improvement, that is the code
> perfectly parallelizes the computations on the 128 bits registers.
> This is a good illustration of the fact that compilers are not always
> as smart as people say, and assembly code can crush C code.
I just submitted a PR with the fix:
More information about the freebsd-ports