On 06/03/17 08:59, wm4 wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 09:37:13 +0100
> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 11:57:52PM +0000, Mark Thompson wrote:
>>> --- a/libavfilter/Makefile
>>> +++ b/libavfilter/Makefile
>>> @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ OBJS-$(CONFIG_NULL_FILTER) += vf_null.o
>>> OBJS-$(CONFIG_OPENCL_PROGRAM_FILTER) += vf_opencl_program.o
>>> opencl.o
>>> OBJS-$(CONFIG_OVERLAY_FILTER) += vf_overlay.o
>>> +OBJS-$(CONFIG_OVERLAY_OPENCL_FILTER) += vf_overlay_opencl.o
>>> opencl.o
>>
>> Now we have the opencl_program filter and the overlay_opencl filter.
>> I vote for consistent naming in either direction.
>
> I think the convention is vf_<name>_opencl, and vf_opencl_program is an
> "exception" because it's not a "program" filter implemented with
> OpenCL, but just an "OpenCL program" filter.
This was my logic. (It was initially just vf_opencl, but given other
opencl-using filters it felt like it needed a qualifier.)
On 06/03/17 09:42, Luca Barbato wrote:
>
> In theory we could have a program filter running other languages, so we
> could have a vf_program_{cuda, opencl, vulkan}.
But I admit this makes sense too.
Change to vf_program_opencl, then? I don't really mind.
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
