Hi On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 12:12 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > i knew you would like my suggestion ;) I always do ;-) > > Now, the only problem I have with your approach is that you're > > exposing the guts of a Fifo implementation and that doesn't seem > > right to my OO-self. After all, that's what av_fifo_peek() > > was introduced for anyway. > > the problem i have (and had) with av_fifo_peek() is that it doesnt > solve the fifo-guts dependance it just hides it which IMHO is worse > people could use av_fifo_peek() and expect to have no dependance on the > fifo guts but they do, at the ABI level Right. That's the price paid for av_fifo_peek()'s performance. Now, currently the way DV audio is shuffled we have to 'peek' every time we need to get to the next byte in the FIFO. As I pointed out it is possible to restructure the code so that we would go over the bytes stored in FIFO in a linear fashion and thus eliminate the peeking process. But even though that would let us get rid of av_fifo_peek() it will introduce a different kind of ugliness where I would have to supply a stateful 'thunk' to av_fifo_generic_read. I guess at this point I am really curious to understand why do you consider ABI level dependency to be a big deal ? Do you actually expect anybody to use libavutil independently of libavcodec/libavformat ? We don't make a shared library out of libavutil, do we ? Thanks, Roman.
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