On 23 December 2016 at 19:40, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le primidi 1er nivôse, an CCXXV, Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> > how hard would it be to write a preprocessor like tool to convert
> > all if (ARCH/HAVE/CONFIG_SYMBOL ...)
> > to
> > #if
> > ?
>
> For a very general case, quite hard, but we
Le primidi 1er nivôse, an CCXXV, Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> how hard would it be to write a preprocessor like tool to convert
> all if (ARCH/HAVE/CONFIG_SYMBOL ...)
> to
> #if
> ?
For a very general case, quite hard, but we do not need it.
If we stick to a few reasonable cosmetic conventions
On 23 December 2016 at 05:12, Matt Oliver wrote:
>
> So I did a quick check over the FFmpeg source for all occurrences of DCE in
> the code base. So far I have found the following:
> 251 uses of DCE with ARCH_XXX
> 54 uses of DCE with HAVE_XXX
> 205 uses of DCE with CONFIG_XXX
>
>
> Basically all
On 23 December 2016 at 15:35, Matt Oliver wrote:
> On 21 December 2016 at 23:55, wm4 wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:48:16 +1100
>> Matt Oliver wrote:
>>
>> > Recently we have again received several patches that are trying to add
>> > workarounds for ffmpegs use of DCE. This is not the first
On 21 December 2016 at 23:55, wm4 wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:48:16 +1100
> Matt Oliver wrote:
>
> > Recently we have again received several patches that are trying to add
> > workarounds for ffmpegs use of DCE. This is not the first time this has
> > happened and wont be the last until a de
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:48:16PM +1100, Matt Oliver wrote:
> Recently we have again received several patches that are trying to add
> workarounds for ffmpegs use of DCE. This is not the first time this has
> happened and wont be the last until a decision is made about the use of
> DCE. So I think
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:48:16 +1100
Matt Oliver wrote:
> Recently we have again received several patches that are trying to add
> workarounds for ffmpegs use of DCE. This is not the first time this has
> happened and wont be the last until a decision is made about the use of
> DCE. So I think its
Le sextidi 26 frimaire, an CCXXV, Matt Oliver a écrit :
> For DCE:
I do not care much about DCE one way or the other, but I do care about
valid arguments.
> 1) Ends up with a horrible mess of ifdefs.
> 2) Disabled parts of code will not be checked for syntax.
>
> Against DCE:
> 3) DCE is not ac
On 21 December 2016 at 19:26, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> 2016-12-16 3:48 GMT+01:00 Matt Oliver :
>
> > For DCE:
> > 1) Ends up with a horrible mess of ifdefs.
>
> This argument alone has often been sufficient to refuse patches here.
>
Hence the initial email as I think that this is a highly subje
2016-12-16 3:48 GMT+01:00 Matt Oliver :
> For DCE:
> 1) Ends up with a horrible mess of ifdefs.
This argument alone has often been sufficient to refuse patches here.
> 6) Issues with lto with Clang and Gold.
> 7) Other unspecified issues with debug builds
Could you elaborate on these two?
Carl
On 16 December 2016 at 13:48, Matt Oliver wrote:
> Recently we have again received several patches that are trying to add
> workarounds for ffmpegs use of DCE. This is not the first time this has
> happened and wont be the last until a decision is made about the use of
> DCE. So I think its time
Recently we have again received several patches that are trying to add
workarounds for ffmpegs use of DCE. This is not the first time this has
happened and wont be the last until a decision is made about the use of
DCE. So I think its time that we made a official decision on the use of
DCE. This is
12 matches
Mail list logo
