|
@@ -58,6 +58,22 @@ dual-license for you to choose from.
|
|
|
No, because it's public domain you can freely relicense it to whatever license your new
|
|
No, because it's public domain you can freely relicense it to whatever license your new
|
|
|
library wants to be.
|
|
library wants to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+#### What's the deal with SSE support in GCC-based compilers?
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+stb_image will either use SSE2 (if you compile with -msse2) or
|
|
|
|
|
+will not use any SIMD at all, rather than trying to detect the
|
|
|
|
|
+processor at runtime and handle it correctly. As I understand it,
|
|
|
|
|
+the approved path in GCC for runtime-detection require
|
|
|
|
|
+you to use multiple source files, one for each CPU configuration.
|
|
|
|
|
+Because stb_image is a header-file library that compiles in only
|
|
|
|
|
+one source file, there's no approved way to build both an
|
|
|
|
|
+SSE-enabled and a non-SSE-enabled variation.
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+While we've tried to work around it, we've had multiple issues over
|
|
|
|
|
+the years due to specific versions of gcc breaking what we're doing,
|
|
|
|
|
+so we've given up on it. See https://github.com/nothings/stb/issues/280
|
|
|
|
|
+and https://github.com/nothings/stb/issues/410 for examples.
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
#### Some of these libraries seem redundant to existing open source libraries. Are they better somehow?
|
|
#### Some of these libraries seem redundant to existing open source libraries. Are they better somehow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generally they're only better in that they're easier to integrate,
|
|
Generally they're only better in that they're easier to integrate,
|
Sean Barrett