From: Stefan L. <Ste...@sn...> - 2001-04-13 21:26:16
|
On Don, 12 Apr 2001, Arne Schirmacher wrote: > If there were two versions of libdv, I would always use the faster one. If the shared lib would be slower, I would probably not use it. Performance for libdv is really a major issue, but not the only one. To my opinion a thread safe version has higher priority (implies PIC :-) ). So I don't know what else is required get PIC ready code, but it is easy to convert local variables of vlc_x86.S (m, mb_start, n_blocks) which are written and read, to stack variables. Other ones like (blk_start,mod_10, mod_12, const_f_0_0_0) are, when my understanding is right, read only. vlc is a write only one. Attached patch is stacked on previous patch for libdv segfaults. > > Arne > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Kobras > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 6:01 PM > To: lib...@li... > Subject: Re: [libdv-dev] Lib status of libdv. > > ... > > case, too. The alternative being two completely seperate version for static > and shared linkage. What's your opinion on this? Do you consider it > worthwhile for libdv to be available as a shared lib at all? > > Regards, > > Daniel. > > -- > GNU/Linux Audio Mechanics - http://www.glame.de > Cutting Edge Office - http://www.c10a02.de > GPG Key ID 89BF7E2B - http://www.keyserver.net > << File: ATT00001.att >> > > _______________________________________________ > libdv-dev mailing list > lib...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libdv-dev -- mfg Stefan Lucke (Ste...@sn...) |