On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:22:56AM -0800, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > Hi, > > 2012/3/1 Måns Rullgård <[email protected]>: > > Kostya Shishkov <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 08:32:06AM -0800, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > On 64bit platforms with 32bit int, this means we won't have to sign- > >>> > extend the integer anymore. > >>> > --- > >>> > libavcodec/arm/vp8dsp_init_arm.c | 32 ++++---- > >>> > libavcodec/ppc/vp8dsp_altivec.c | 16 ++-- > >>> > libavcodec/vp8dsp.c | 44 +++++----- > >>> > libavcodec/vp8dsp.h | 38 +++++----- > >>> > libavcodec/x86/vp8dsp-init.c | 158 > >>> > +++++++++++++++++++------------------- > >>> > 5 files changed, 144 insertions(+), 144 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> Ping. > >> > >> is it still intptr? > > > > I still think these should be ptrdiff_t. > > See old thread, some people object to intptr_t and others object to > ptrdiff_t, for orthogonal reasons. Someone had to make a decision, > that person was me, and it is intptr_t. This is consistent with what > x264 does and thus probably a good long-term idea anyway. (Also please > note that they're really always the same, so we're talking pure theory > bs here.)
And someone else made a decision naming a library libtidsp. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
