On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Robert Hegemann wrote:
> On my Linux Box with a Pentium 166 MMX the MMX and non-MMX
> version produce bit identical results.
How did you get the Linux version to assemble the MMX code? I've had no
luck with GNU as v2.10.0 under FreeBSD. I'm obviously missing some
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Robert Hegemann wrote:
> At least your 3.87 MMX version seems to be compiled with the
> Makefile.MSVC I checked in, with RH_AMP and RH_VALIDATE_MS
> enabled. Dmitry, is that right?
BTW Robert, are you recommending these options for improved quality? Would
th
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Roel VdB wrote:
> 1b)3.87 -V1 is 20% faster than 3.86 (thanks Robert!)
> 1c)3.87 -V1 MMX is 35% faster than 3.86 (thanks Takehiro!)
I'll second the thanks to you both :)
> 2) I miss the # of frames in each bitrate mode. The new real-time %
>data looks really neat, but pl
> "M" == Mark Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
M> BTW The gcc 2.95.2 options are perfectly valid for FreeBSD as
M> well as Linux. Obviously :) Can they be copied into the FBSD
M> section too?
silly thing. you had better detect CPU/Compiler by configure and
output the option to
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Takehiro Tominaga wrote:
> > "M" == Mark Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> M> BTW The gcc 2.95.2 options are perfectly valid for FreeBSD as
> M> well as Linux. Obviously :) Can they be copied into the FBSD
> M> section too?
>
> silly thing. you had bett
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Robert Hegemann wrote:
> Mark Powell schrieb am Don, 28 Sep 2000:
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Robert Hegemann wrote:
> >
> > > On my Linux Box with a Pentium 166 MMX the MMX and non-MMX
> > > version produce bit identical results.
> >
> > How did you get the Linux version
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Gabriel Bouvigne wrote:
> # of S frames/ total # of M/S frames]. Room enough on the lines :)
> > > 4) Why does the MMX mode and non-MMX mode give different output on my
> > >Cel450/Win95OSR2? Isn't MMX supposed to give same results?
> >
> > On my Linux Box with a Pentiu
