Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de> writes: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:22:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de> writes: >> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:48:39PM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote: >> >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Diego Biurrun wrote: >> >> >The table is so small that the space gain is not worth the >> >> >performance overhead of cross-library access. >> >> >--- >> >> > >> >> >Now with each duplicated table in a separate file. >> >> > >> >> >libavcodec/Makefile | 1 + >> >> >libavcodec/log2_tab.c | 1 + >> >> >libavutil/Makefile | 1 + >> >> >libavutil/log2_tab.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >libavutil/mathematics.c | 11 ----------- >> >> >5 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> >create mode 100644 libavcodec/log2_tab.c >> >> >create mode 100644 libavutil/log2_tab.c >> >> >> >> This is used in libavformat as well, so that one also needs a copy, >> >> if this is the way to go. >> > >> > Alternatively, we could make the table public. >> >> What good would that possibly do? I thought we were trying to get rid >> of exported data symbols. > > I thought we were trying to get rid of semi-private and private symbols > shared across libraries...
Yes, because they are troublesome when building DLLs. Making them public does nothing to mitigate those problems. -- Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
