On 22/01/13 18:14, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò > <flamee...@flameeyes.eu> wrote: >> On 22/01/2013 03:02, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >>> >>> This is never used. >> >> This has a strange effect on the other avg_pixels8_* functions, me and >> Luca have been looking into it today — it's not bad, but if we can >> stagger this a moment, we might be able to figure it out properly. > > You'll probably want to explain what you mean with "strange effect"?
Basically by removing that code we give enough space for gcc to decide to inline more code in the 10bit variant of some h264mc functions. That results in overall more bytes used. Overall the speed is around the same so it isn't an huge issue. (tested using 1080p25 content encoded with x264 10bit to exercise all the interesting paths) More about it once I'm back on irc =) I'm not against pushing it since the problem is deep down in the macro nest and your patch is yet another step to make things more bearable. lu _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
