On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 12:32:30AM +0000, Mans Rullgard wrote: >> --- >> libavcodec/Makefile | 1 + >> libavcodec/dsputil.c | 27 -- >> libavcodec/dsputil.h | 3 - >> libavcodec/dsputil_template.c | 596 >> +---------------------------------------- >> libavcodec/h264.c | 6 +- >> libavcodec/h264.h | 2 + >> libavcodec/h264qpel.c | 86 ++++++ >> libavcodec/h264qpel.h | 38 +++ >> libavcodec/h264qpel_template.c | 550 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> libavcodec/hpel_template.h | 100 +++++++ >> libavcodec/rv30dsp.c | 12 +- >> libavcodec/rv40dsp.c | 28 +- >> libavcodec/x86/Makefile | 1 + >> libavcodec/x86/dsputil_mmx.c | 93 +------ >> libavcodec/x86/h264_qpel.c | 126 +++++++++ >> 15 files changed, 938 insertions(+), 731 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 libavcodec/h264qpel.c >> create mode 100644 libavcodec/h264qpel.h >> create mode 100644 libavcodec/h264qpel_template.c >> create mode 100644 libavcodec/hpel_template.h > > This is missing the configure bits, but looks good otherwise on a > quick glance - any more opinions?
Splitting dsputil into individual pieces can only be good. Ronald _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
