On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 10:23 PM, Josh de Kock <j...@itanimul.li> wrote: > >> On 1 Feb 2018, at 18:51, Muhammad Faiz <mfc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:25 AM, Josh de Kock <j...@itanimul.li> wrote: >>> Also replace linked list with an array. >>> --- >>> configure | 12 +- >>> doc/APIchanges | 4 + >>> libavcodec/.gitignore | 2 + >>> libavcodec/allcodecs.c | 1473 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- >>> libavcodec/avcodec.h | 31 + >>> libavcodec/parser.c | 84 ++- >>> libavcodec/utils.c | 112 ---- >>> libavcodec/version.h | 3 + >>> 8 files changed, 971 insertions(+), 750 deletions(-) >>> >> >> I have a plan to sort codecs based on name and codec_id (which overlap >> with this patch). Is it OK if I overtake this? >> If it is not OK, I will wait until this patchset pushed. >> > > I am unsure why you would need to sort codecs.
For performance reason. > The point of my patches is to bring > the rest of ffmpeg up to the bsf iteration api (which abstracts internals > away from the user). I planned on doing lavfi as well, but how the build > system worked with filter names made it awkward. Hence me submitting these > patches without a lavfi counterpart (I stills haven’t worked out the best way > to do it yet). The way you’ve done your static initialisation of lavfi seems > like a backwards way to do it, and would make overalls consistency difficult > (something quite desirable, which my patches work towards). Imho, av*iterate things are less elegant than av*next. But, the change actually is not based on elegance, but based on performance (av*next requires initialization of next pointer). Thank's. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list email@example.com http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel