[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] replace some static with asm_visibility or so
Mon Jan 28 00:22:58 CET 2008
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:26:06AM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 22:37 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 10:54:43PM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 21:22 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 09:18:57PM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > > > > I see no evidence for any of those claims ("months of work", "more
> > > > > fragile" or "harder to maintain").
> > >
> > > ... and you still gave no reason to believe that even one of your claims
> > > would have been justified.
> > to proof the time, it needs to implement it, one would have to implement it.
> > As noone will implement your idea (not even you) one can only speculate
> > how long it would have taken.
> It doesn't take much speculation to see your claim was wrong.
it takes less specuation to see it was correct
but either way certain is that you belive it takes enough time that you wont
implement it and rather point at a half working sketch you
did with a single small file (cabac.h)
half working as it didnt work with gcc 2.95 and let us not forget it
worked fine with gcc 2.95 before you "improved" it
> > the harder to maintain and more fragile is obvious from the need of
> > additional code which would not be needed otherwies (special cases for
> > gcc 2.95/gcc 3
> Disabling asm for some compiler versions shouldn't be hard to maintain.
well disabling things to hide ones inability to write working code is
we could just have disabled the asm for ICC as solution yet we try to
support it, an ugly non free compiler. Iam sure many consider free gcc 2.95
also above all reimars solution is simple and allows asm to compile with
both gcc 2.95 and ICC your solution (which noone will implement not even you
due to the speculative amount of time it would require) will certainly break
gcc 2.95 asm or disabele it and as disscussed will cause many other issues
So while you can continue to claim that there would be some so far unmentioned
advanatge in your approch (we really are arguing about how bad its
fact is reimar implemented his solution very quickly and it will solve the
problem while not removing currently working features
yours wont be implemeted by anyone, and asm will afterwards undisputedly not
work with gcc 2.95 anymore
at that point the discussions about it are becoming a little to hypthotetical
for me, so feel free to continue this
but i fear it will be a monologue
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your
right to say it. -- Voltaire
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel