Hi! On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 12:04:50 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > On lunes, 2 de enero de 2017 00:28:22 ART Guillem Jover wrote: > > > The only thing I would like you to change in order to accept the patch is > > > to change the generic hasRequiredCpuSupport() for something more precise, > > > maybe something along cpuHasSse2Support() or alike. Yes, I know it's just > > > details, but helps while looking at the code. > > > > I think we might have covered this in the past reviews, but in any > > case I think that would be very confusing, because on non-i386 such > > cpuHasSse2Support() function would need to return true, which is very > > much not correct. :) > > WRT past reviews: I'm pretty sure this must have happened, although maybe I > left Dmitry alone with that and so I haven't fully checked. My mistake non > the > less, I should have checked.
No problem! > > I've left it as is, but reworked the text message > > handling so that it's also generic now. Hope that qualms your concerns. > > > > Actually, I didn't like that either, and reworked it even further (v2), > > but I've not build tested that one yet. > > > > Attached both updated patches, for which I've only built tested the first > > one for now, but I'd not expect any run-time problems. But I'll try to do > > that for the second one tomorrow. > > Indeed I also prefer the second one. have you got to check it? I'll start > preparing the packaging. I checked it some days ago, but already when the upload had happened, it obviously built :), so just letting you know it seems to work fine, thanks! Regards, Guillem
