El 03/05/12 12:19, Miroslav Lichvar escribió: > Hi Josh, > > nice to see you here again. > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 04:26:05PM -0700, Josh Coalson wrote: >> (Jumping in again, maybe at the wrong point since this doesn't seem >> to involve encoding, but here goes.) >> >> Miroslav's patches have always been high-quality for sure. But >> regardless of submitter, any patch that affects encoding must be >> reviewed very carefully, preferably by several other people and >> definitely me. If there were ever a libFLAC release that had a bug >> and was not always lossless, that would be very damaging to the >> format. > > The bitreader patch touches only the rice decoding code which I > believe is very well covered by the test suite and any bugs would be > quickly seen. Also, it has also been included in the Fedora packages > for several years, no bug reports about MD5 mismatch were received > yet :). > > It makes the C function faster than the corresponding asm routine, so > if it's included I'd suggest to just drop the asm function to not keep > around more asm code than is necessary. > > I'm not sure if anyone is planning to port the asm code to x86_64, I > think that it will be quite a lot of work, perhaps it would be a good > time to reconsider using inline assembly instead of nasm to minimize > the amount of asm code? It would be useful to know how much are the > individual asm routines actually faster, it has been a long time > since I played with it. >
Hi: Both Erick and I did already submitted patches to the tree that do just exactly what your flac-1.2.1-bitreader.patch intended.. please checkout current GIT tree. Cheers! _______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev