On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 08:34:12PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > Hi guys, > > more generic question/proposal: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Loren Merritt <lor...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > > This is two separate proposals. In the first proposal, such branches would > > be uniform (distance between successive filterPos is determined solely by > > scaling ratio), so can be factored out of the loop, resulting in multiple > > scaling variants. > > > > In the second proposal, filterPos values are always equal for the same > > horizontal position in different rows, no branches necessary. > > I'd like to delay these until after this patch is applied. Does anyone > mind if I apply the patch as-is (with the phaddd change as suggested > by Loren) so others can continue from there? I have little time ATM > and it'd suck to see this patch just be left in the bushes.
+1 from me - I prefer to apply stuff if it is a considerable improvement even when it is not perfect yet as long as it adds no hacks or regressions. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
