Roman Shaposhnik <rvs at Sun.COM> writes: > On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 21:48 +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: >> Roman Shaposhnik <rvs at sun.com> writes: >> >> > On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 21:11 +0100, michael wrote: >> >> Modified: trunk/libavutil/fifo.c >> >> ============================================================================== >> >> --- trunk/libavutil/fifo.c (original) >> >> +++ trunk/libavutil/fifo.c Wed Jan 17 21:11:23 2007 >> >> @@ -99,9 +99,7 @@ >> >> memcpy(dest, f->rptr, len); >> >> dest = (uint8_t*)dest + len; >> >> } >> >> - f->rptr += len; >> >> - if (f->rptr >= f->end) >> >> - f->rptr = f->buffer; >> >> + av_fifo_drain(f, len); >> >> buf_size -= len; >> >> } >> > >> > For things like this one, would it make sense to declare >> > the actual function (av_fifo_drain in this particular case) >> > an external inline ? Or is it too risky with gcc ? >> >> GCC often inlines functions even without the inline keyword. Have you >> checked whether perhaps it did it here already? > > It seems to be doing it in this particular case. I guess I was more > concerned about other compilers, but then again, making it > "extern inline" doesn't guarantee anything, anyway. I somehow suspect you might know how at least one of those "other compilers" handles such cases... -- M?ns Rullg?rd mru at inprovide.com
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4