On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:02:31PM +0200, Martin Storsjö wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Vittorio Giovara wrote: >> >> >--- >> >This was identified as one of the last remaining functions that interweaved >> >lavc and lavf badly, so at our fosdem meeting it was suggested to move the >> >common parts into lavu. > >> I'm not against it as a concept, but the exact reasonings need to be >> explained in the patch, not just briefly summarized, because the >> reasons behind the patch (and the issues you are trying to solve) >> are way more important than the patch itself. > > Yes. I took this patch as an RFC though, where these details would > be filled in later. >
Yes such a big patch is definitely to be considered a RFC. Unfortunately it's very hard to split this into into three parts as both put_bits and get_bits rely on mathops so moving any one of them requires editing all the includes and theoretically puts the tree in a state where lavu depends from lavc, which is something I'd like to avoid. Regarding moving the rejected mathops.h, this operation is needed because get bits uses sign_extended, NEG_USR32 and a few other functions; put_bits has just a wrong include that can be worked on separately. Thanks for all the comments received so far. Vittorio _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
