[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Enable building 64bit FFmpeg on MacOSX

[Måns Rullgård]

Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 01:49:29PM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:25:08PM -0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> > > Seems ugly to me, maybe better check compilation of something like
>> > >
>> > > int test[sizeof(intptr_t) - 7];
>> >
>> > That's much better, but I'm not entirely comfortable with any of this.
>> > The problem is, there are several distinct aspects to the 32/64-bit
>> > distinction:
>> >
>> > 1. Whether to require PIC for shared libs
>> > The need for PIC on x86-64 is due to immediate offsets being limited to 32
>> > bits, wherefore textrels cannot be used.  It is perfectly possible, in
>> > theory, to restrict symbol addresses to the low 4GB of the address space,
>> > which would obviate the need for PIC while still making use of 64-bit
>> > features.  I don't know of any compiler/linker options that will make
>> > this happen, but I wouldn't completely discount the possibility.
>> > This matters only for the linker flags and for a few bits of inline
>> > assembler that test for the PIC preprocessor symbol.  Short of trying
>> > to link something with suitable relocations, I can't think of a reliable
>> > test for this.
>> >
>> > 2. Register names to use in assembler code
>> > Again, availability of the x86_64 register set is independent of the
>> > sizes of C types.  This is easy to test for in configure.
>> >
>> > 3. Whether the machine has 64-bit words
>> > This is an architecture-independent question.  It is entirely possible for
>> > both long and pointers to be 32-bit, with long long being 64 bits wide,
>> > even on a native 64-bit machine.  From a C code point of view, this
>> > case is indistinguishable from 64-emulation by the compiler as typically
>> > done on 32-bit machines.  I can't think of a reliable way to test this.
>> >
>> > 4. Size of various C types
>> > Some assembler code contains hardcoded offsets into structs which depend
>> > on the size of C types.
>> >
>> > The existing uses of ARCH_X86_64 in the code fall into one of the above
>> > categories.  IMO, we should try to separate the cases with individual
>> > tests for each.  I have the feeling this would make a lot of problems
>> > magically go away.
>>
>> I agree, but since we have no good tests, I think 1,3 and 4 can be done
>> with my suggestion I think.
>
> What's it going to be, guys?

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm working on getting rid of some of the
#ifdefs entirely.  I wasn't aware that this was an urgent problem.

Feel free to help me with those hardcoded offsets in inline asm.  GCC
is being most unfriendly.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com