On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Christophe Gisquet wrote:
Hi,
2014-02-05 Martin Storsjö <mar...@martin.st>:
Based on a patch by Ronald S. Bultje.
---
Updated as suggested by Janne, to not require pushing anything to
the stack.
That's not really an issue worthy of additional work, but with such
patches, it may be interesting to know the impact of the fix
speed-wise.
For instance, this second patch looks like the right thing to do. But
besides that, is there an actual/objective reason, e.g. number of
cycles? (I guess they can vary significantly depending on
architecture, cache/memory speed etc, but still...).
I tried adding START_TIMER/STOP_TIMER around the calls here, but the
runtime for each call seems to vary a lot so I'm not getting anything
conclusive. I guess it's practically kinda insignificant performance wise,
the most value probably lies in keeping the code a little simpler.
// Martin
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
