Aurelien Jacobs wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:25:38 +0100 > Steve Lhomme <steve.lhomme at free.fr> wrote: > >> Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:15:00AM +0100, Steve Lhomme wrote: >>>> Alex Beregszaszi wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>>>> If you really want to be that gnucentric, >>>>>> do you know why everyone who uses visual <bluescreen, restarts system) C++ >>>>>> has a problem with understanding the different between standart and gcc? >>>>>> we HATE gcc and we certainly are not, where not and never will be >>>>>> gnucentric, ffmpeg code is stanard C, everything else is under #ifdefs >>>>>> like asm, always_inline and so on >>>>>> >>>>>> it must be something like >>>>>> * user sees vc++ fail with random program >>>>>> * user sees gcc to suceed with same random program >>>>>> * user concludes that program is written specifically for gcc as he knows >>>>>> MS always follows all standards very carefully >>>>> Thats a great point here. >>>> It's like the difference between people who prefer to use C99 and the >>>> ones who prefer to use a real-world compiler. >>>> >>>> Anyway, C99 doesn't cover inline ASM AFAIK so you can't seriously say >>>> that FFMPEG is not designed for gcc. >>> you know very well that they are under #ifdefs (some of the other people >>> who claimed that ffmpeg where written for gcc may or may not have known that >>> but you do as you have worked with the code) so could you maybe spare >> The ASM code is #ifdef'd by the makefile. If you compile the code with >> another compiler it will fail because the ifdefs are not clean. I >> actually made some changes recently to DrFFMPEG to have both ppc and >> i386 ASM compiled in the same project at the same time (to make >> universal binaries in XCode) and I had to add some cleaner #ifdef's. >> >> Nevertheless, the "full" FFMPEG is only usable with a tuned gcc. That's >> my whole point. Portable ASM files (to be processed by nasm and yasm) is >> always possible and make the code much more portable. But I understand >> it's not the goal of this project. > > Why would nasm or yasm be more portable than gas for example ? > Do nasm or yasm support ppc, arm, alpha, sparc, sh4... ? WTH are you talking about ? I'm saying that the hardware acceleration could be available to more than a tuned gcc, not that ASM code is portable across platforms. Steve
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