Hi, On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Kostya Shishkov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:22:56AM -0800, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >> 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: >> >>> 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.
This discussion was had, sorry, I could only please 50%, I decided to please the others. Reverting that will displease the other 50%. Please move on. Now can we review the patch? Ronald _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
