On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 11:40:19AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote: > On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 11:07:04AM +0100, Kostya Shishkov wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:59:28AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:36:36AM +0100, Kostya Shishkov wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:42:53AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote: > > > > > --- > > > > > libavcodec/dct-test.c | 2 +- > > > > > libavcodec/dsputil.c | 1 + > > > > > libavcodec/dsputil.h | 14 -------------- > > > > > libavcodec/fdct.h | 37 > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > libavcodec/jfdctfst.c | 2 +- > > > > > libavcodec/jfdctint_template.c | 2 +- > > > > > libavcodec/jrevdct.c | 2 +- > > > > > libavcodec/mpegvideo_enc.c | 1 + > > > > > libavcodec/proresdsp.c | 1 + > > > > > libavcodec/x86/dsputilenc_mmx.c | 1 + > > > > > libavcodec/x86/fdct.c | 2 +- > > > > > libavcodec/x86/mpegvideoenc.c | 2 +- > > > > > 12 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > > > > create mode 100644 libavcodec/fdct.h > > > > > > > > Maybe it makes sense to group both IDCTs and DCTs together?</cykelbod> > > > > > > Your suggestion is moving the declarations to dct.h instead of fdct.h? > > > > Yes, maybe. Or maybe even group splitted out dsputil parts somehow (move to > > one subdir, add a prefix to filenames, etc). I somewhat dislike polluting > > lavc > > with many additional headers that are not directly related to codecs - we > > have > > too many of them already. But that's merely my opinion. > > I like the general idea and tend to agree with you, but that's a cleanup > task I'd leave for another day. So fdct.h or dct.h?
Either gather more opinions or flip a coin to decide. Both outcomes are fine with me. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
