On 28/10/13 16:27, Clément Bœsch wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 03:37:58PM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote: >> From: Luca Barbato <lu_z...@gentoo.org> >> >> --- >> I did some more cleanup. >> Vittorio >> >> libavcodec/mpeg4video.c | 153 +-- >> libavcodec/mpeg4videodec.c | 2801 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- >> 2 files changed, 1661 insertions(+), 1293 deletions(-) >> > [...] >> - mot_val[0 ]= mot_val[2 ]= >> - mot_val[0+stride]= mot_val[2+stride]= mx; >> - mot_val[1 ]= mot_val[3 ]= >> - mot_val[1+stride]= mot_val[3+stride]= my; >> >> - if(s->mbintra_table[xy]) >> + mot_val[0] = >> + mot_val[0 + stride] = >> + mot_val[2] = >> + mot_val[2 + stride] = mx; >> + >> + mot_val[1] = >> + mot_val[1 + stride] = >> + mot_val[3] = >> + mot_val[3 + stride] = my; >> + > > Why do you make the code potentially less efficient in a "cosmetic" > commit?
Your assumptions regarding compilers and architectures are outstanding. > BTW, it's always fun to look for hidden functional changes in 2.8k+ diff > cosmetics patches. Are you using those cosmetics commits to get functional > changes upstream without review? The original patch states that is a refactor. Thanks for spotting one of the uncrustify artifacts remaining. lu _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
