[x264-devel] [PATCH 20/32] Generate a header listing every symbol that needs to be duplicated

[BugMaster]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:58:41 +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:35 PM, BugMaster <BugMaster at narod.ru> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:55:20 +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Derek Buitenhuis
>>> <derek.buitenhuis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/2017 4:43 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
>>>>> Alternatively we could go and add a specific suffix to all those symbols
>>>>> and generate the list automatically using a simple grep+sed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since it would be severely more invasive we preferred to avoid it.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have the list so we can do easily the symbol rename in the code anytime.
>>>>
>>>> The actual x264 devs (not me) should chime in with their opinion, probably.
>>
>>> If I may add, this list is basically static as the number and names of
>>> the internal functions hardly ever changes nowadays. It seemed more
>>> efficient to list every symbol once than making script-friendly edits
>>> and generating the same list of functions at every make run.
>>
>> For the record on the ML. I already many times mentioned in PMs that I
>> don't like this huge function list and "hardly ever changes nowadays"
>> is not the argument for this maintenance burden which will only make
>> x264 to change even less. I would prefer some preprocessor magic like
>> private_prefix in x86inc.asm if this is possible.

> I actually doubt that adding a line for each function is a
> "maintenance burden" and there is only so much code that can change in
> an established codebase. At any rate, I can only object that
> generating the same list every time is just wasteful and since it has
> to happen *before* the code is compiled so there is no preprocessor
> magic that could help with it.

> We initially experimented generating the list with `sed` (and actually
> got most of the list out of it) but nonetheless it required a lot of
> manual intervention to get the full scope.

Were I said that this list should be generated before compilation or
at all? IMHO this list shouldn't exist at all and functions that need
duplication should be somehow annotated (preprocessed) directly in the
place where they defined.