Quoting Alexandra Hájková (2016-05-04 19:10:37) > >> That said, if you (Hendrik, Vittorio, Kieran) _really_ cannot stand _32 > >> for the function returning unsigned, that could be dropped, for the 63 > >> bits one I'd rather keep _63 instead of having "_long" as naming. > >> > >> The functions would then be > >> > >> unsigned int bitstream_read() > >> > >> uint64_t bitstream_read_63() > >> > >> unsigned int bitstream_peek() > >> > >> uint64_t bitstream_peek_63() > >> > >> int bitstream_read_signed() > >> > >> Would that be an acceptable compromise? > >> > >> > > No, it would be inconsistent which is even worse. > > Kieran > What's inconsistent about this > > I like the bitstream_read() /peek idea and I wouldn't mind > bitstream_read/peek_long() for up to 63 reading.
Actually I think it would make more sense to have the 63-bit version as the unprefixed "default" one, since most bitstream reading is parsing frame headers and such where performance is not all that important, but safety is. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
