Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DAV1D: A New AV1 Video Decoder From The VideoLAN Developers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by oleid View Post
    I don't see any difference between the two languages (C and rust). Both can use in-line assembly, intrinsics and/or simd if you wish to do so.
    Yeah because inline assembly in Rust is obviously much more secure, stable, etc than even raw assembly source file itself directly. The R from Rust is for Retarded.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by oleid View Post
      What architectures are you missing?
      Confused is right. If you even have to ask then you clearly don't get it. Hint, it doesn't even come close to meeting
      the stated requirement of the project which is to be portable. Rust is not.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Shnatsel View Post
        Rust should have been a no-brainer.
        One of the most important project requirements is for the decoder to be portable. Rust does not meet that requirement at all.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by brad0 View Post

          One of the most important project requirements is for the decoder to be portable. Rust does not meet that requirement at all.
          I think the distinction needs to be made that while Rust is technically portable (targets LLVM), it is not compatible with existing legacy build systems whereas C is.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
            I think the distinction needs to be made that while Rust is technically portable (targets LLVM), it is not compatible with existing legacy build systems whereas C is.
            Rust (yes, because of LLVM, it does not target enough architectures and even some of the archs it does support the backends are not mature enough) does NOT meet the requirements for this project to be portable. Period. The build systems have NOTHING to do with the issue. That isn't going to change anytime soon or ever. So Rust is off the table.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
              Sersiously... what are you arguing against? Because at this point I have no clue what it is you think I'm wrong about.
              My only point is that if you are consuming legal content in a legal manner from a source that actually gives a damn about security, you have nothing to worry about. If you feel there is still something to worry about, fine - go ahead and live your life in fear. Not my problem.
              You, meanwhile, are questioning what legal means, as a way to disagree with my point. In other words, I interpret your point as "well I don't think it should be illegal so therefore I should be protected from my actions" and my point against that is "it doesn't matter what you think because as long as something is deemed a criminal activity, you have compromised your own security".
              This is pretty straight-forward... I'm not sure what you're not getting here.
              All I'm saying, schmidtbag, is that you sound like you want to accept the term "illegal" without question. It's not always obvious.
              Last edited by vegabook; 03 October 2018, 05:00 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by brad0 View Post

                Rust (yes, because of LLVM, it does not target enough architectures and even some of the archs it does support the backends are not mature enough) does NOT meet the requirements for this project to be portable. Period. The build systems have NOTHING to do with the issue. That isn't going to change anytime soon or ever. So Rust is off the table.
                There is a rust compiler, which compiles to C as an intermediate step. It's used for platforms, which have no LLVM backend, like a bunch of micro controllers. But those are hardly an issue for this decoder.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Maybe the devs are more familiar with C than Rust … I want dav1d ready this year.

                  I'm a Rust programmer by hobby, but I think C99 sans VLA can still be a perfectly reasonable choice in 2018:

                  * Think the right tool for the job: This is performance critical code. If they chose Rust, they would need to worry about disabling implicit range checks. If they chose C++, they would need to worry about sticking to a very unidiomatic graphene-thin subset of C++17.
                  * They are going to write much of it in assembly anyway.
                  * The FFmpeg/VLC devs are experts anyway.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    I guess Rust is the new systemd. People love it, people hate it, and they fling poo at each other.

                    I have to go to the kitchen, I think I heard the microwave finish with my popcorn.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      C99 sans VLA can still be a perfectly reasonable choice in 2018
                      that's true. I think people should use, what they are most comfortable with, if it makes technical sense.

                      As for those bound checks: it really depends on what you're doing. Often, there are ways to avoid paying that cost. If not, there is always unsafe api.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X