On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 21:43:51 (CEST), Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <[email protected]> wrote: >> Inline functions are slightly larger in source code, but >> are easier to handle in source code editors. The binary code >> generated is the same. >> --- >> libswscale/swscale.c | 64 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ >> 1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > As can be noticed, this is a typical bikeshed topic. Macros vs. inline > functions? I prefer inline because there's no trailing slashes at the > end. Plus the typical complaint about sws is that it's a macro hell. > Source code is larger when using inline functions, though. Please let > me know if you'd like me to do this for the other functions > (32/16/15-bit RGB to UV and Y). If people don't like this, I won't > waste my time on converting these functions, which will take a lot > longer.
Moreover, for many static analysis tools such macros definition cause a lot of trouble and make them less useful. Converting them to proper inline functions like this patch helps them *a lot*. +1, therefore. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
