2014-11-30 13:03 GMT+01:00 Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at>: > not really, no, > that was also why i posted a patch for this, i wasnt sure this is > worth the extra table size
No strong opinion here, I don't think the increased memory/potential speed impact are critical, in particular for this codec. Mostly matters for embedded stuff I guess, but the table seems already too big to fit in most L1 data caches anyway. > puttig it under CONFIG_SMALL is tricky because it affects a encoder > output which is used in the fate tests so the fate test would depend > on the CONFIG_SMALL setting OK, scratch that idea, then. -- Christophe _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
