On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Rostislav Pehlivanov >>> <atomnu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 22 March 2016 at 18:14, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Per doc/optimization.txt, aac is a widely used codec, so even a 0.1% >>>>> improvement in aac is fair game for optimizations, assuming it is a >>>>> small code change. Of course, one can debate whether this is small or >>>>> not. I view it as simple and clean, others may disagree. >>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, I still doubt that that 0.1% is a definite performance improvement. >>> >>> Then change doc/optimization.txt. >> >> This particular doc doesn't give you a blanket argument. Specifically >> if the maintainer objects on account of complexity, you should honor >> that - the doc even says as much (ie. only "clean and simple" being >> justified) > > It does not. And of course I honor a maintainer's wishes. If he > refuses to accept a performance improvement, so be it. > > I just want it clear that from my view this is still ridiculous given > FFmpeg's track record on these sorts of things in the past. I also > find it ironic that there are objections to this on the lines of "what > about some (unspecified) platform?", when bccc81dfa was accepted with > no problems.
A 7% overall improvement is quite a different topic than 0.1%, isn't it. For 7% on all common platforms, one might risk another outcome on more obscure cases. - Hendrik _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel