Hi, 2014-10-03 19:36 GMT+02:00 James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com>: > When i first tried to tackle the libswresample asm to reduce the overall > object size, the general reaction was that speed is more important than > size.
Wasn't the trade-off much worse there? (the impact here is around 1%) > Adding AVX2 MC functions is probably more attractive to users than having > the library be a hundred or so kbs smaller. Most probably, albeit I wonder how much it actually helps for MC. On the other hand, who will be willing to try and fix things in that code? The more I look at it, the more difficult it looks (to me). Another example: the whimsical xmm reg usage declaration. Not a real word bug, though. > I'm all for smaller and cleaner source and object files, but if it makes > it hard to add new instruction sets and at the same time brings a small > performance hit, then I'm not sure it's worth it. Yes, that's the trade-off I was more concerned with. > Just my two cents. It's up to HEVC maintainers to decide that anyway. I don't think the patch is acceptable either, but probably some time in the future, this would better be addressed. I don't expect it to happen, though. Overall, there are much more important asm bits missing (idct, sao) anyway. -- Christophe _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel