James Almer (12020-11-13):
> I thought that was -lto behavior.
No, I am sure of what I am saying about classic static libraries. I do
not know link-time optimizations very well, but I suspect they relate to
optimizing withing a single object file.
> Don't think they were.
I strongly suspect some
On 11/13/2020 11:40 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
James Almer (12020-11-13):
This results in a libavfilter binary that links to libvmaf for no reason,
potentially bloating it if it was linked statically.
That is not how static linking works. Static linking takes in the
library exactly the object f
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:34:09AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 11/13/2020 11:27 AM, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 01:20:57PM +0100, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> > > On 13.11.2020 02:23, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 02:14:05AM +0100, Timo
James Almer (12020-11-13):
> This results in a libavfilter binary that links to libvmaf for no reason,
> potentially bloating it if it was linked statically.
That is not how static linking works. Static linking takes in the
library exactly the object files required by the binary and other
object f
On 11/13/2020 11:27 AM, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 01:20:57PM +0100, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
On 13.11.2020 02:23, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 02:14:05AM +0100, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
On 13.11.2020 02:05, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 01:20:57PM +0100, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> On 13.11.2020 02:23, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 02:14:05AM +0100, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> > > On 13.11.2020 02:05, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 05:56:57PM +0100, T
On 13.11.2020 02:23, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 02:14:05AM +0100, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
On 13.11.2020 02:05, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 05:56:57PM +0100, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
Technically, libvmaf itself does not, but our filter does,
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 02:14:05AM +0100, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> On 13.11.2020 02:05, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 05:56:57PM +0100, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> > > Technically, libvmaf itself does not, but our filter does, and there is
> > > no other sensible way to
On 13.11.2020 02:05, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 05:56:57PM +0100, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
Technically, libvmaf itself does not, but our filter does, and there is
no other sensible way to prevent a build with --enable-libvmaf from
succeeding while not actually enabling
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 05:56:57PM +0100, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> Technically, libvmaf itself does not, but our filter does, and there is
> no other sensible way to prevent a build with --enable-libvmaf from
> succeeding while not actually enabling the filter.
If it's private filter, I think yo
10 matches
Mail list logo
