On 2012-01-03 13:30:31 +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:03:22PM +0100, Janne Grunau wrote: > > > > not really, we could either make the timer macros more complicated. The > > start would need to be stored in a static table or we could add a macro > > INIT_TIMER which declares the needed variables. > > > > Or we revert to the previous behavior and just warn about this. > > > > Each option is annoying, I think I prefer INIT_TIMER > > I have two patches pending that fix the compilation failures. One just > merges declarations and initializations and should be a no-brainer.
that is ok but doesn't solve the problem > The > other declares new blocks along with START_TIMER - I'm not entirely sure > if this could not have any negative sideeffects. Alternatively, we could > declare a new block in START_TIMER itself, possibly a cleaner solution. doing it manually should have no side effects beside requiring manually finding a suiteable place for the end of the block. Adding it to START/STOP_TIMER limits the placement of STOP_TIMER. Not sure if it's relevant. Janne _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
