On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:53:09PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 8/28/2017 12:08 PM, wm4 wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:52:52 -0300
> > James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> --- a/libavutil/cpu.c
> >> +++ b/libavutil/cpu.c
> >> @@ -184,12 +185,20 @@ int av_cpu_count(void)
> >>
> >> size_t av_cpu_max_align(void)
> >> {
> >> - int flags = av_get_cpu_flags();
> >> + int av_unused flags = av_get_cpu_flags();
> >>
> >> +#if ARCH_ARM || ARCH_AARCH64
> >> + if (flags & AV_CPU_FLAG_NEON)
> >> + return 16;
> >> +#elif ARCH_PPC
> >> + if (flags & AV_CPU_FLAG_ALTIVEC)
> >> + return 16;
> >> +#elif ARCH_X86
> >> if (flags & AV_CPU_FLAG_AVX)
> >> return 32;
> >> - if (flags & (AV_CPU_FLAG_ALTIVEC | AV_CPU_FLAG_SSE |
> >> AV_CPU_FLAG_NEON))
> >> + if (flags & AV_CPU_FLAG_SSE)
> >> return 16;
> >> +#endif
> >>
> >> return 8;
> >> }
>
> Something like
>
> size_t av_cpu_max_align(void)
> {
> if (ARCH_AARCH64)
> return ff_get_cpu_max_align_aarch64();
> if (ARCH_ARM)
> return ff_get_cpu_max_align_arm();
> if (ARCH_PPC)
> return ff_get_cpu_max_align_ppc();
> if (ARCH_X86)
> return ff_get_cpu_max_align_x86();
> return 8;
> }
>
> Would be more in line with the rest of the codebase, but seems overkill
> to me. I can send such an implementation anyway if that's preferred in
> any case.
That would be much better. Your original patch is IMO a step in the wrong
direction. Arch-specific code should not litter the C code in the first
place and your patch produces an ifdef maze on top of that.
Diego
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
