On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So this is likely because we init all tables instead of just these that we > need, right? So how about having one ff_once per table? That should be > trivial to implement. >
(from the right account this time) Just so we're all on the same page, this is trivial, but will get a bit messy unless I'm missing something. The ff_thread_once() API only takes a void(void) function, so unless there's partial specialization hiding somewhere we need prototypes for each partial initialization. I.e. ff_init_ff_cos_static_table_init_4(), ff_init_ff_cos_static_table_init_5(), ff_init_ff_cos_static_table_init_6(), etc for 4..16. We would also then have an array of AVOnce items for entries 4..16 where each entry would correspond to calling the paired initialization function. Is this what everyone had in mind? - dale _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
