[x264-devel] commit: Fix C99ism in r1066 (Jason Garrett-Glaser )

[Andrea Barbieri]

Mathieu Monnier wrote:
>> ICC is a commercial product that is sold $600 apiece. Visual studio
>> should probably cost around the same, right? (pardon my ignorance,
>> I've not used a Windows machine for 10 years). Once you go commercial,
>> all the tools that rotate around are commercial too, right?
> 
> MSVC 2005 and 2008 both have a free version ("express"), which enable 
> most features of visual studio. The only feature lacking, in regard to 
> x264, is profile guided optimization (fprofile for gcc).

are you sure?

PGO (Profile guided optimization) has been available in MSVC since 2005
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa289170.aspx

> 
> Personnally, I like MSVC's IDE, and it should be possible to set it up 
> to use mingw's gcc instead of microsoft compiler (I have never tried 
> that myself, but I'm pretty sure it's possible).

I would say this remains an (unproven) concept until its viability is
demonstrated.

I wouldn't worry to much about the IDE... there's Eclipse, NetBeans, and
Idea just to name a few providing IDE C/C++ project integration.

> 
> In the end, the only thing that could justify keeping MSVC support would 
> be if MSVC provided faster binaries. One should go back far enough in 
> time when x264 didn't use any inline assembly and make the test (and a 
> fair one, ie fprofile versus profile guided or non fprofiled versus 
> normal building).
> 

when you say "if MSVC provided faster binaries" do you refer to the
actual generated binaries or the compilation speed of the tools
themselves (I suspect the former)?

what is the real reason to remove all MSVC support?

are we saying that without support for the subset of C99 features
introduced in r1066 there would be a loss in performance?

or is it just a simple dislike for Microsoft (compiler) tools even when
they are free and/or recent?


just trying to understand the real motivations behind the decision.


thanks
andrea