On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 02:09:01PM +0100, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 01:41:13PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 08:19:32AM +0100, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > > > On 17.11.2014, at 02:37, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 06:16:03PM +0100, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > > > >> 11674 -> 10877 decicycles on my Phenom II. > > > >> Overall speedup was unfortunately within measurement error. > > > > > > > > here its 10153 ->10135 > > > > > > I suspect it also depends a bit on the compiler and how it changes the > > > surrounding code. > > > Note that I also tested with PIC actually. > > > > > > > but ive a slightly odd feeling about the chnages to the asm code, > > > > iam not sure if all assemblers will be happy about the changed > > > > code > > > > > > Do you mean particularly the movzbl change? > > > > yes and the k stuff > > > > > > > I am also unsure about that, I think there was a reason for that %k6 > > > mess... > > > But this as well as movzx seemed to work for me... > > > > it works here too i just have the feeling it might fail on some odd > > assembler or platform. Thats not meant to keep you from pushing this > > just that it might require to be reverted or fixed if such > > problems actually occor > > I pushed it. > If anyone sees issues please tell me and I'll look into it!
i think these fate failures are caused by it but thats based just on other commits in the range looking unlikely: http://fate.ffmpeg.org/report.cgi?time=20141122231657&slot=x86_64-darwin-clang-3.5-O3 http://fate.ffmpeg.org/report.cgi?time=20141122223720&slot=x86_64-darwin-clang-3.5 [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB There will always be a question for which you do not know the correct answer.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel