[CELT-dev] CELT grabbing 100KB of memory right off the top
brett at fmod.org
Mon Apr 18 20:20:26 PDT 2011
"Lots of people build CELT fine on non-C99 compilers."
not without a lot of manual patching each time a new celt is released. I
think i've mentioned several of these issues on IRC, restrict and inline
being the worst offenders.
CELT_RESTRICT and CELT_INLINE would be most appreciated. I have to patch
this in each time and it's not trivial.
Brett Paterson | CEO
FMOD by Firelight Technologies Pty Ltd
Interactive Audio Middleware | www.fmod.org
PH: +61 3 96635947 Fax: +61 3 96635951
From: celt-dev-bounces at xiph.org [mailto:celt-dev-bounces at xiph.org] On Behalf
Of Jean-Marc Valin
Sent: Tuesday, 19 April 2011 12:44 PM
To: Ross Bencina
Cc: celt-dev at xiph.org
Subject: Re: [CELT-dev] CELT grabbing 100KB of memory right off the top
These sorts of features are meant to be handled by the config.h file.
Same for inline, fixed-point, stack allocation and others. Lots of
people build CELT fine on non-C99 compilers.
On 11-04-18 10:09 PM, Ross Bencina wrote:
> Timothy B. Terriberry:
>> What's wrong with passing -Drestrict ? Anything can be a macro in C.
> What's wrong with writing portable code that can compile out of the box
> compilers other than gcc?
> imho if code is intended to be portable, C99 features should be used as an
> optional enhancement, not a baseline requirement. Code can (and should) be
> written accordingly. For example, detect if restrict is available rather
> than assuming it is.
> I have experienced the same hurdles trying to get CELT to compile under
> non-gcc compilers and I too find it surprising that a baseline
> implementation like this would assume C99 as a requirement.
> (a CELT user who uses multiple compiler toolchains on a daily basis)
> celt-dev mailing list
> celt-dev at xiph.org
celt-dev mailing list
celt-dev at xiph.org
More information about the celt-dev