[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] RFC: separate DWT code from snow

[Måns Rullgård]

Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:

> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:11:04PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
>> 
>> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 03:16:38AM +0000, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> +#define slice_buffer_get_line(slice_buf, line_num) ((slice_buf)->line[line_num] ? (slice_buf)->line[line_num] : slice_buffer_load_line((slice_buf), (line_num)))
>> >> +//#define slice_buffer_get_line(slice_buf, line_num) (slice_buffer_load_line((slice_buf), (line_num)))
>> >> +
>> >> +void slice_buffer_init(slice_buffer * buf, int line_count, int max_allocated_lines, int line_width, IDWTELEM * base_buffer);
>> >> +void slice_buffer_release(slice_buffer * buf, int line);
>> >> +void slice_buffer_flush(slice_buffer * buf);
>> >> +void slice_buffer_destroy(slice_buffer * buf);
>> >> +IDWTELEM * slice_buffer_load_line(slice_buffer * buf, int line);
>> >
>> > these should be documented, ideally by their author ...
>> 
>> Yes, and I'll gladly leave that to the author.  What I'm asking is
>> if this split is OK, and if it's being done in the right place.
>
> iam definitly in favor of the split, about the correct place, i dont know
> what the correct place would be

I moved all the functions that looked like generic dwt, even though
some of them have snow in their names.

If it's OK with out, I'll also create a DWTContext for the function
pointers currently in DSPContext, or perhaps put them in DWTCompose.
This will unlink dwt from dsputils entirely, taking us one step closer
towards a reasonably-sized dsputil.c.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com