On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 8:15 AM Moritz Barsnick <barsn...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 21:32:46 -0500, FeRD wrote: > > Well... not *purely* cosmetic. See [1] for an example of one issue. > Ruby's > > > `ruby/config.h` header also defines an `RSHIFT` macro, with different > > semantics (it doesn't round), so when building code which includes > > both headers the macro ends up being redefined. > [...] > > [1]: https://github.com/OpenShot/libopenshot/issues/164 > > While I agree with the assessment that ffmpeg's macro should have been > named "FF_RSHIFT", "AV_RSHIFT" or even something more appropriate along > your suggestion, you failed to post an upstream patch with ruby to > rename their macro to "RUBY_RSHIFT". ;-) Fair, but that could be taken as a compliment! Changing it in either source tree is sufficient to solve the conflict, so perhaps the FFMpeg project seemed like the venue that would produce less friction. ;-) No, honestly, the main reason is that... well, Ruby's RSHIFT defines a classic bitwise right-shift, whereas FFMpeg's rounds. So, in my very opinionated opinion, Ruby's RSHIFT is at least CORRECT, whereas FFMpeg's is just plain wrong. (Wrong to be called "RSHIFT", when it's really ROUNDED_RSHIFT.) So if there's going to be any macro defining RSHIFT, I'd prefer it at least be one that fits the name. Should Ruby's be named RUBY_RSHIFT? Sure, it'd certainly make life easier. Should FFMpeg's be named AV_ROUNDED_RSHIFT? Also sure. But (again in my opinionated opinion) not AV_RSHIFT, because that's still *not* what it does! (And especially since the FFMpeg codebase already has AV_CEIL_RSHIFT which always rounds upwards, setting a pattern/precedent for the naming.) _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
