[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]Disable DECLARE_ASM_CONST workaround for icc 12
Sat Jun 5 18:53:23 CEST 2010
On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 04:31:05PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Reimar D?ffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> writes:
> > On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 03:56:36PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> Reimar D?ffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> writes:
> >> > On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 11:33:08AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> >> Carl Eugen Hoyos <cehoyos at ag.or.at> writes:
> >> >> IMO this problem should be solved differently. Combining it with the
> >> >> alignment macro is weird to say the least.
> >> >
> >> > I was never supposed to be combined with the aligned macro, that's
> >> > why the DECLARE_ASM_CONST was added.
> >> DECLARE_ASM_CONST expands to something containing an alignment
> >> specifier, and that is IMO mixing unrelated things. A better solution
> >> would be to do something like
> >> #define static_used static __attribute__((used))
> >> when that attribute works and to nothing otherwise, then use that in a
> >> normal DECLARE_ALIGNED invocation if extra alignment is required.
> > Well, the idea was just to have one single macro saying "do whatever
> > it takes so that this is available as a constant for assembler code
> > in this file".
> Yes, and that description doesn't include anything about alignment.
Caught me. I meant to say "so that this is usable", which does somewhat
imply the alignment.
Well, anyway those were my thoughts back when I implemented it, it may
not make quite as much sense as I thought in hindsight.
> > But I'm not objecting if anyone has strong feelings about this...
> It would reduce the amount of duplication in those macros.
It would probably increase the amount of "duplication"/complexity in
the declarations of the assembler constants.
I wouldn't consider it a win, however "bikeshed", do as you want from
More information about the ffmpeg-devel