[x264-devel] DT_TEXTRELs on x86_32

[atoth at atoth.sote.hu]

Dear Dark Shikari,

Thank you for your reply.

I understand your reasons for dropping support for a PIC32. Deeply inside
I cannot accept it. Unfortunately I cannot provide a solution. I'm
probably not skilled enough, but more importantly I don't have enough time
and energy to contribute in the maintenance of PIC32 parts. I reverted
back parts of the changes causing TEXTRELs, but I faced with the new code.
I can only sadly acknowledge it and switch of support for x264. I just
want to let you recognize, that there are still some dudes around using
x86_32 and for whom TEXTRELs matters and willing to sacrifice 4-5% of
performance loss. May be this is a sign for me to move on to x86_64...

Still Wishing a Merry Christmas:
Dwokfur
-- 
dr Tóth Attila, Radiológus, 06-20-825-8057, 06-30-5962-962
Attila Toth MD, Radiologist, +36-20-825-8057, +36-30-5962-962

On Csü, December 25, 2008 12:13, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote:
>> I agree, that some TEXTRELs in an executable won't stop x86_32 running.
>> But there are some users who still care about TEXTRELs and would choose
>> that discouraged complexity even on x86_32 instead of simplicity.
>>
>> I'd like to kindly ask you to restore the old behavior on x86_32 or at
>> least provide a way to activate the old macros upon need using an option
>> or something. Please take into consideration my humble opinion, and
>> don't
>> treat it like whining of an unskilled user. I think most users don't
>> know
>> anything about TEXTRELs. However there are some idiots, like me who
>> care.
>
> Supporting PIC32 means a few things:
>
> 1.  Uglier asm code.
> 2.  Someone must be willing to maintain PIC32, and furthermore be
> willing to add PIC32 to all new assembly functions written.  This is a
> lot of work.
> 3.  Having to deal with all the people who inadvertently enable it, as
> it costs 4-5% speed.
>
> It was removed because nobody was willing to do 2), and we were sick
> of 1) and 3).  It isn't just a case of "macros"--you need a lot of
> special-casing to deal with the fact that PIC requires an extra
> register... which as you may know are in rather short supply on
> x86_32.
>
> Dark Shikari
> _______________________________________________
> x264-devel mailing list
> x264-devel at videolan.org
> http://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x264-devel
>