Diego Biurrun wrote:
Next time you call shenanigans, get your facts straight first please. I
never claimed that we do not *have* OS-specific workarounds, I said we
do not *add* them.
That's a verrrry fine distinction and was not at all clear from the
foregoing conversation.
> The libavcodec directory has entirely separate
subdirs for different processors -- platform specificity is BUILT IN
to the ffmpeg source tree.
Nonsense. These are assembler optimizations for speed-critical
functions (and the reason why you can watch movies without GHz CPUs).
These are, by their very nature, processor-specific, but they are not
workarounds. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It's an example of special purpose (blocks of) code, where a given block
is compiled only under particular circumstances -- e.g. for a specific
target cpu -- in pursuit of a particular goal. In this case: speed.
Control flow (whether a particular file or block of code is actually
compiled for a given target) is determined by...for lack of a better
term, "makefile magic".
> That file ALSO contains a
half-dozen implementations of read_time depending on which
microprocessor architecture is in use.
What does this have to do with a workaround? read_time is internally
used in some benchmarking macros, it is not an OS function.
It's an exampleof special purpose (blocks of) code, where a given block
is compiled only under particular circumstances -- e.g. for a specific
target cpu -- in pursuit of a particular goal. In this case: high res
benchmarking. Control flow (whether a particular file or block of code
is actually compiled for a given target) is determined by...using the
earlier nomenclature, "ifdef magic".
Oh, and lookee here, in the same file:
#ifndef HAVE_LRINTF
/* XXX: add ISOC specific test to avoid specific BSD testing. */
/* better than nothing implementation. */
/* btw, rintf() is existing on fbsd too -- alex */
static av_always_inline long int lrintf(float x)
{
return (int)(rint(x));
}
#endif /* HAVE_LRINTF */
Good catch, this is cruft from ages ago. I will look into nuking this
very soon.
So, I find an example of EXACTLY the sort of feature-dependent
workaround under discussion, and your response is "no, that's not a
valid example...and if it is, we'll get rid of it?"
Look, the point is: there are many platforms out there that do not
support the entire panoply of C99 functions. Or even all POSIX (1b? 1c?
1e? 2?) functions. If the FFMpeg team cares about portability, the
correct answer is not to climb upon a high horse, declaim "we do not
[use|add] platform-specific workarounds" and deliberately release code
that is /not/ portable to the disdained platform -- and then blame that
platform for not updating their runtime library according to /your/
project's release schedule. "Well, cygwin will just have to be broken"
If you do /not/ care about portability, then the response above is
perfectly fine.
So all in all you have refuted some points I never made, while bungling
some of the research used to substantiate your claims. What is the
point you are trying to prove here?
No, you missed the point of the three examples. They demonstrate a
plethora of special-purpose code: whether (the control flow determining
if a particular hunk of code is compiled) is in the Makefile magic
(build the i386 subdir, don't build the ppc subdir, etc) or is in the
ifdef magic (#ifdef HAVE_I386_CPU, etc) is immaterial.
And is no different than:
#ifndef HAVE_LLRINTF
replacement code for llrintf()
#endif
(which is feature-based, not platform-based, anyway!)
It was just disappointing to see a simple replacement function -- no
different in principle than any of the three examples I provided, and
practically identical to the last example, rejected with a blase' "we
don't add platform-specific workarounds -- cygwin will just have to be
broken". WTH?
--
Chuck
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
