[XviD-devel] ME file layout

[Christoph Lampert]

On Thu, 22 May 2003, Radek Czyz wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
> 
> > there's so much C code in the "header" files (most likely so it can be
> > made static and inlined?). Is that really needed?
> 
> Yes that's right, and I don't like it either.
> However, I talked to Pete about it and he said it wasn't a problem...
> 
> Yes, I wanted to keep the code static (not necessary inlined - many
> functions are only called by pointers so they can't be inlined), so
> that the unnecessary symbols are not exported.
> Do you think that was a bad idea?

No, both static and inline is of course a good idea. 
It's just that I'm no fan of C-source code in header files, because I keep
forgetting about it. When I'm searching for code I usually run a grep for
*.c files. 
Anyway, no big deal...
 
> > There's not much difference between one source file of 120K and one of 50K
> > which #includes 5 header files with the the remaining 70K.
> 
> >From compiler's point of view - true. However,I just coded R-D mode
> decision for b-frames, and it was a _huge_ difference for me. So I'd
> really like to split it, this way or another. If you think that I
> should create real c-files (as separate objects) and exporting extra
> symbols is not a big deal, I'll probably be able to do that.

Hm, no, I don't find exporting the symbols a big deal, if their names are 
unique to XVID. E.g. xvid_motionestwithalongname, and maybe we can access
them by a #define'd shorthand which isn't exported.

But I don't object against your current method, either, I was just
curious.
If you feel it's stable and better, please commit.

gruel