Hi On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 11:15 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > 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. > > maybe the whole could be done easier without using a AVFifoBuffer? That's what I'm going to try over the weekend. Now, going forward I'm sure the questions like the one asked about av_fifo_peek() will get asked from time to time -- so it'll be interesting to have you state your position explicitly. Do you always prefer solutions which *explicitly* manipulate the internals of a particular data type on a caller site over the solutions which abstract that manipulation into a dedicated function, but for performance reasons provide it in a header file, thus suffering from a potential ABI breakage. 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