[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] swscale: Do not misuse HAVE_* flags.

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 03:54:59AM -0300, Ramiro Polla wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Michael Niedermayer<michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 03:01:22AM -0300, Ramiro Polla wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Michael Niedermayer<michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 06:00:19PM -0300, Ramiro Polla wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 05:28:21PM -0300, Ramiro Polla wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 02:14:15PM -0300, Ramiro Polla wrote:
> >> >> >> >> swscale: Do not misuse HAVE_* flags.
> >> >> >> >> Rename COMPILE_* to SWSCALE_COMPILE_*.
> >> >> >> >> Rename wrong uses of HAVE_* to COMPILE_*.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > [...]
> >> >> >> >> @@ -1594,7 +1592,7 @@ error:
> >> >> >> >> ? ? ?return ret;
> >> >> >> >> ?}
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> -#if COMPILE_MMX2
> >> >> >> >> +#if SWSCALE_COMPILE_MMX2
> >> >> >> >> ?static void initMMX2HScaler(int dstW, int xInc, uint8_t *funnyCode, int16_t *filter, int32_t *filterPos, int numSplits)
> >> >> >> >> ?{
> >> >> >> >> ? ? ?uint8_t *fragmentA;
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > this should be HAVE_MMX2 when HAVE* are not changed
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> SWSCALE_COMPILE_MMX2 is HAVE_MMX2 && CONFIG_GPL. If CONFIG_GPL is not
> >> >> >> set, we shouldn't be compiling this. Besides, using SWSCALE_COMPILE_*
> >> >> >> makes it consistent with the rest of the file.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Or am I missing something?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > #if CONFIG_GPL
> >> >> > # ? undef HAVE_MMX
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> > #endif
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't think it's a good idea to fiddle around with HAVE_* flags, and
> >> >> this patch removes code that currently does it. Also if/when people
> >> >> start rewriting parts of the GPL code, we will end up with some GPL
> >> >> and some LGPL code. Keeping the HAVE_ flags intact is better to decide
> >> >> what to build.
> >> >
> >> > iam currently maintainer of swscale and i prefer not to make
> >> > the #ifdeffery worse than what it already is.
> >>
> >> New patch attached (it doesn't depend on a previous patch like the
> >> first one in this thread did).
> >
> > fine if tested
> 
> Applied.
> 
> >> IMO it does not make the ifdeffery worse, in fact I think it makes it
> >> cleaner. COMPILE_TEMPLATE_ sounds much more intuitive than HAVE_ for
> >> the given purpose, and HAVE_ is used for another purpose on the rest
> >> of FFmpeg.
> >>
> >> I read in an old thread you said you would not review MMX rewrites
> >> [0]. In my previous reply to this thread I was still under the
> >> impression that swscale MMX code was mostly written by other people
> >> (like the libmpeg2 folks) and that's why it was GPL. I'm sorry if my
> >> reasoning for the patch made it sound like I wanted to encourage
> >> rewrites of your code. I just want (L)GPL code to be easily
> >> selectable, and with the current if(!GPL) disable MMX approach it's
> >> impossible. IIRC Kostya has been writing swscale code under LGPL, and
> >> we already have some LGPL MMX optimization [1] which is not being
> >> compiled in LGPL builds.
> >
> > I dont mind to have the existing LGPL code enabled but i would
> > prefer if some of thouse many companies using ffmpeg and who would
> > benefit from LGPL sws would pay the GPL authors to relicense it
> > instead of more being rewritten by some of us for free.
> >
> > This world is nasty, the supermarkets around here _do_ charge money
> > for the food, and ISP, electricity, ... aint free either.
> > Maybe i should get a job, iam not particularely short on offers but
> > that wouldnt help ffmpeg as i would likely have significantly less
> > time for it ...
> > I hope people understand now why iam annoyed by a sws LGPL rewrite,
> > iam simply seeing the possibility of covering some past expenses.
> > Outside of that i dont really care if my code is GPL or LGPL, i
> > might slightly prefer GPL but thats not a big thing ...
> >
> > To summarize it again
> > A. some of us working for free to please companies who dont pay us
> > ? ->we also have less time for other things and we do need to pay
> > ? ? food,ISP,appartment,electricity,failed computer components,...
> > ? ? that occur during that time
> > B. receiving some money and simply relicensing to LGPL
> >
> > Writing FOSS is supposed to be a fun thing and working for free for
> > someone who does make money of ones work but donates none of it isnt
> > fun IMHO.
> > The way it should be is IMHO
> > * we write code we like under a license we like not write what some
> > ?rich company wants so they can fill their pockets even more ...
> >
> > In that sense i also think it would be nice if companies who have
> > money would donate some to the devel who fixed a bug for them that
> > they wanted fixed.
> > As a sideeffect that might (though noone can know for sure of course)
> > have a positive effect on the amount of bugs that are open...
> 
> We could start a "Adopt a scaler" campaign, where people can pay for a
> scaler and after they've all been "adopted" you relicense all the
> optimizations...

iam fine with that if people think it will work


[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not
approve, and what they approve I do not know. -- Epicurus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20090727/2133639b/attachment.pgp>