On Fri, 25 Mar 2022, Lynne wrote:
25 Mar 2022, 19:52 by bavi...@riscosopen.org:+@ VC-1 in-loop deblocking filter for 4 pixel pairs at boundary of vertically-neighbouring blocks +@ On entry: +@ r0 -> top-left pel of lower block +@ r1 = row stride, bytes +@ r2 = PQUANT bitstream parameter +function ff_vc1_v_loop_filter4_neon, export=1 + sub r3, r0, r1, lsl #2 + vldr d0, .Lcoeffs + vld1.32 {d1[0]}, [r0], r1 @ P5 + vld1.32 {d2[0]}, [r3], r1 @ P1 + vld1.32 {d3[0]}, [r3], r1 @ P2 + vld1.32 {d4[0]}, [r0], r1 @ P6 + vld1.32 {d5[0]}, [r3], r1 @ P3 + vld1.32 {d6[0]}, [r0], r1 @ P7 + vld1.32 {d7[0]}, [r3] @ P4 + vld1.32 {d16[0]}, [r0] @ P8Nice patches, but 2 notes so far:
Indeed, the first glance seems great so far, I haven't applied and poked them closer yet.
What's with the weird comment syntax used only in this commit?
In 32 bit arm assembly, @ is a native assembler comment character, and lots of our existing 32 bit assembly uses that so far.
Different indentation style used. We try to indent our Arm assembly to: <8 spaces><instruction><spaces until and column 24><instruction arguments>.
Hmm, I haven't applied this patch locally and checked yet, but at least from browsing just the patch, it seems to be quite correctly indented?
We already discussed this in the previous iteration of his patchset, and the cover letter mentioned that he had fixed it to match the convention now. (And even in the previous iteration, the 32 bit assembly matched the existing code.)
// Martin _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
