Hi, On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Reinhard Tartler <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 21:43:51 (CEST), Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >> 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.
Awesome, I'll do the same for the other C functions then. I don't intend to change the MMX for now. Ronald _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
