On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 08:52:15PM +0100, Benoit Fouet wrote: > Hi, > > Le 30/11/2014 13:11, Christophe Gisquet a écrit : > >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. > > I wouldn't bother if there is no asking for it. Michael, does this > patch come because of a request you've had?
nope > If not, I don't think it's worth it. ok, agree [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be. -- Socrates
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
