Quoting James Almer (2021-05-23 00:09:02)
> This is in preparation for the following commit.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com>
> ---
> libavutil/mem.c | 17 +++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/libavutil/mem.c b/libavutil/mem.c
> index fa227f5e12..c12c24aa90 100644
> --- a/libavutil/mem.c
> +++ b/libavutil/mem.c
> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
> #include <limits.h>
> #include <stdint.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> +#include <stdatomic.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #if HAVE_MALLOC_H
> #include <malloc.h>
> @@ -68,17 +69,17 @@ void free(void *ptr);
> * dynamic libraries and remove -Wl,-Bsymbolic from the linker flags.
> * Note that this will cost performance. */
>
> -static size_t max_alloc_size= INT_MAX;
> +static atomic_size_t max_alloc_size = ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(INT_MAX);
>
> void av_max_alloc(size_t max){
> - max_alloc_size = max;
> + atomic_store_explicit(&max_alloc_size, max, memory_order_relaxed);
Any specific reason for using a non-default memory order?
AFAIK it is recommended by the spec authors to use default (sequentially
consistent) operations unless there is a very good reason to do
something else.
--
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
