On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 7:24 PM, <u-9...@aetey.se> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 05:27:19PM +0200, wm4 wrote: >> > Musl merely showed you the problem and now you are suggesting to "document >> > that the messenger with his bad news about our health is no longer >> > welcome". >> >> musl could also choose to abandon its incredibly "clever" hack (that >> makes almost everyone who sees it go "WTF"), and, as was pointed our on > > :-D > IOW it exposes the _bugs_ in how people are accustomed to reason. > >> IRC, probably increase the efficiency and readability of the code in >> question. Yes, musl is technically in the right, but only technically. > > Is your opinion (about efficiency) sufficiently well informed? > No offence but I assume you to be a mutimedia guru, not a standard > library expert, which the author of the code is. > > We shall not blindly accept authority of course. If you have a suggestion > for improvement, given a reasonable ground it would be useful on the musl > mailing list. > > Here and without a real ground it looks like a FUD. > > As for readability, it is your personal opinion. > > Again: no offence! Standard libraries are just a quite different area, > it postulated other skills and presents other implementation challenges > than multimedia programming. >
Optimized code is the same everywhere, you just write different algorithms. - Hendrik _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
