Re: [libav-devel] [PATCH] ppc: pixblockdsp: do unaligned block accesses correctly again

2016-11-03 Thread Andreas Cadhalpun
On 03.11.2016 22:06, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 03/11/2016 21:35, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: >> On 03.11.2016 09:36, Luca Barbato wrote: >>> The patch makes sense only if line_size is not a multiple of 16 and >>> normally AVFrames have their linesizes multiple of 32 ... >> >> Yes, but this limitation

Re: [libav-devel] [PATCH] ppc: pixblockdsp: do unaligned block accesses correctly again

2016-11-03 Thread Luca Barbato
On 03/11/2016 21:35, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > On 03.11.2016 09:36, Luca Barbato wrote: >> On 02/11/2016 21:34, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: >>> Tested with qemu on ppc32be and ppc64be. >> >> How did you configure it? > > I used qemu-ppc64-static for ppc64be and > 'export QEMU_CPU=7400_v2.9;

Re: [libav-devel] [PATCH] ppc: pixblockdsp: do unaligned block accesses correctly again

2016-11-03 Thread Andreas Cadhalpun
On 03.11.2016 09:36, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 02/11/2016 21:34, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: >> Tested with qemu on ppc32be and ppc64be. > > How did you configure it? I used qemu-ppc64-static for ppc64be and 'export QEMU_CPU=7400_v2.9; qemu-ppc-static' for ppc32be. On 03.11.2016 10:21, Luca

Re: [libav-devel] [PATCH] ppc: pixblockdsp: do unaligned block accesses correctly again

2016-11-03 Thread Luca Barbato
On 02/11/2016 21:34, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > @@ -67,10 +67,10 @@ static void get_pixels_altivec(int16_t *restrict block, > const uint8_t *pixels, > ptrdiff_t line_size) > { The patch makes sense only if line_size is not a multiple of 16 and normally AVFrames

Re: [libav-devel] [PATCH] ppc: pixblockdsp: do unaligned block accesses correctly again

2016-11-03 Thread Luca Barbato
On 02/11/2016 21:34, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > Tested with qemu on ppc32be and ppc64be. How did you configure it? ___ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel

[libav-devel] [PATCH] ppc: pixblockdsp: do unaligned block accesses correctly again

2016-11-02 Thread Andreas Cadhalpun
This was broken by the following Libav commit: 4c387c7 ppc: dsputil: do unaligned block accesses correctly The following tests fail due to this: fate-checkasm fate-vsynth1-dnxhd-2k-hr-hq fate-vsynth1-dnxhd-edge1-hr fate-vsynth1-dnxhd-edge2-hr fate-vsynth1-dnxhd-edge3-hr