[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Enable building 64bit FFmpeg on MacOSX

[Diego Biurrun]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 01:49:29PM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:25:08PM -0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > > Seems ugly to me, maybe better check compilation of something like
> > >
> > > int test[sizeof(intptr_t) - 7];
> > 
> > That's much better, but I'm not entirely comfortable with any of this.
> > The problem is, there are several distinct aspects to the 32/64-bit
> > distinction:
> > 
> > 1. Whether to require PIC for shared libs
> > The need for PIC on x86-64 is due to immediate offsets being limited to 32
> > bits, wherefore textrels cannot be used.  It is perfectly possible, in
> > theory, to restrict symbol addresses to the low 4GB of the address space,
> > which would obviate the need for PIC while still making use of 64-bit
> > features.  I don't know of any compiler/linker options that will make
> > this happen, but I wouldn't completely discount the possibility.
> > This matters only for the linker flags and for a few bits of inline
> > assembler that test for the PIC preprocessor symbol.  Short of trying
> > to link something with suitable relocations, I can't think of a reliable
> > test for this.
> > 
> > 2. Register names to use in assembler code
> > Again, availability of the x86_64 register set is independent of the
> > sizes of C types.  This is easy to test for in configure.
> > 
> > 3. Whether the machine has 64-bit words
> > This is an architecture-independent question.  It is entirely possible for
> > both long and pointers to be 32-bit, with long long being 64 bits wide,
> > even on a native 64-bit machine.  From a C code point of view, this
> > case is indistinguishable from 64-emulation by the compiler as typically
> > done on 32-bit machines.  I can't think of a reliable way to test this.
> > 
> > 4. Size of various C types
> > Some assembler code contains hardcoded offsets into structs which depend
> > on the size of C types.
> > 
> > The existing uses of ARCH_X86_64 in the code fall into one of the above
> > categories.  IMO, we should try to separate the cases with individual
> > tests for each.  I have the feeling this would make a lot of problems
> > magically go away.
> 
> I agree, but since we have no good tests, I think 1,3 and 4 can be done
> with my suggestion I think.

What's it going to be, guys?

Diego