On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Diego Biurrun wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 02:10:05PM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> --- a/libavcodec/arm/vp3dsp_init_arm.c
> +++ b/libavcodec/arm/vp3dsp_init_arm.c
> @@ -23,9 +23,9 @@
>
> -void ff_vp3_idct_put_neon(uint8_t *dest, int line_size, int16_t *data);
> -void ff_vp3_idct_add_neon(uint8_t *dest, int line_size, int16_t *data);
> -void ff_vp3_idct_dc_add_neon(uint8_t *dest, int line_size, int16_t *data);
> +void ff_vp3_idct_put_neon(uint8_t *dest, ptrdiff_t stride, int16_t *data);
> +void ff_vp3_idct_add_neon(uint8_t *dest, ptrdiff_t stride, int16_t *data);
> +void ff_vp3_idct_dc_add_neon(uint8_t *dest, ptrdiff_t stride, int16_t *data);
Why are you renaming the parameter at the same time? That's not what I
would have expected of such a patch, especially since you do not mention
it in the commit message.
C, neon, ppc, x86 use a random mix of "stride" and "line_size".
And?
If a patch says "Change type of stride parameters to ptrdiff_t", I would
expect such a patch to change the type of parameters, not change other
unrelated things (i.e. parameter names), even if you think it is prettier
this way.
If it bothers you that they differ, change it in a different patch.
// Martin
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
