[pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH 04/13] tests: Use single-line #ifdef for ARM NEON code

[David Henningsson]

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