On 25/03/2022 22:53, Martin Storsjö wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2022, Ben Avison wrote:
+#define
CHECK_LOOP_FILTER(func) \
+ do
{ \
+ if (check_func(h.func, "vc1dsp." #func))
{ \
+ declare_func_emms(AV_CPU_FLAG_MMX, void, uint8_t *, int,
int); \
+ for (int count = 1000; count > 0; --count)
{ \
+ int pq = rnd() % 31 +
1; \
+ RANDOMIZE_BUFFER8_MID_WEIGHTED(filter_buf, 24 *
24); \
+ call_ref(filter_buf0 + 4 * 24 + 4, 24,
pq); \
+ call_new(filter_buf1 + 4 * 24 + 4, 24,
pq); \
+ if (memcmp(filter_buf0, filter_buf1, 24 *
24)) \
+
fail(); \
+
} \
+
} \
+ for (int j = 0; j < 24;
++j) \
+ for (int i = 0; i < 24;
++i) \
+ filter_buf1[24*j + i] = 0x60 + 0x40 * (i >= 4 && j >=
4); \
+ if (check_func(h.func, "vc1dsp." #func "_bestcase"))
{ \
+ declare_func_emms(AV_CPU_FLAG_MMX, void, uint8_t *, int,
int); \
+ bench_new(filter_buf1 + 4 * 24 + 4, 24,
1); \
+ (void)
checked_call; \
+
} \
+ if (check_func(h.func, "vc1dsp." #func "_worstcase"))
{ \
+ declare_func_emms(AV_CPU_FLAG_MMX, void, uint8_t *, int,
int); \
+ bench_new(filter_buf1 + 4 * 24 + 4, 24,
31); \
+ (void)
checked_call; \
+
} \
(not a full review, just something that cropped up in initial build
testing)
Why do you have the "(void) checked_call;" here? The checked_call isn't
something that is universally defined; its availability depends on the
OS/arch combinations, on other combinations, call_new/call_ref just call
the function straight away without a wrapper.
OK, I missed that subtlety. My aim was to avoid the "unused variable"
compiler warnings generated as a result of there being twice as many
benchmark tests as correctness tests. I believe we need separate calls
of check_func() to initialise the cycle counts for each benchmark, and
copying the sequence of macros from checkasm/blockdsp.c, I was placing
the declare_func_emms() invocations inside the if block that used
check_func(). That meant that checked_call was initialised, but since
the correctness test (call_ref / call_new) was in a different block
scope, this checked_call declaration was never used.
Upon further investigation, I think it's valid to move the
declare_func_emms() invocation up to the next largest block scope. That
means it would only appear once rather than 3 times, and it wouldn't
need the cast-to-void any more. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.
Ben
_______________________________________________
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".
