This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: llrint implementation in Cygwin


Charles Wilson wrote:
Diego Biurrun wrote:

llrint is required, so I guess Cygwin compilation will indeed be broken for a while. We don't add OS-specific workarounds to FFmpeg.

I call shenanigans.

Next time you call shenanigans, get your facts straight first please. I never claimed that we do not *have* OS-specific workarounds, I said we do not *add* them.


> The libavcodec directory has entirely separate
subdirs for different processors -- platform specificity is BUILT IN to the ffmpeg source tree.

Nonsense. These are assembler optimizations for speed-critical functions (and the reason why you can watch movies without GHz CPUs). These are, by their very nature, processor-specific, but they are not workarounds. Nothing could be further from the truth.


> That file ALSO contains a
half-dozen implementations of read_time depending on which microprocessor architecture is in use.

What does this have to do with a workaround? read_time is internally used in some benchmarking macros, it is not an OS function.


Oh, and lookee here, in the same file:

#ifndef HAVE_LRINTF
/* XXX: add ISOC specific test to avoid specific BSD testing. */
/* better than nothing implementation. */
/* btw, rintf() is existing on fbsd too -- alex */
static av_always_inline long int lrintf(float x)
{
    return (int)(rint(x));
}
#endif /* HAVE_LRINTF */

Good catch, this is cruft from ages ago. I will look into nuking this very soon.


So, we have:
  architecture-specific workarounds
  compiler-specific workarounds
  OS-specific workarounds
  AND capability-specific (!HAVE_FOO) workarounds

All god's chillins gots workaround code. "We don't add OS-specific workarounds", indeed...

So all in all you have refuted some points I never made, while bungling some of the research used to substantiate your claims. What is the point you are trying to prove here?


best regards

Diego


-- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]