Le torstaina 11. tammikuuta 2024, 16.15.29 EET Martin Storsjö a écrit : > > AV_READ_TIME() reads time, not cycles. > > Right, I can adjust the wording. Exactly what kind of measurement > AV_READ_TIME returns varies between architectures and environments indeed.
In practice, yes, but I would argue that it's a bug if it does not measure time. At the very least because, the name is extremely misleading. > What about: > > checkasm: unable to execute platform specific timer > > > If we want cycle count, then we should add a separate macro, as the two > > are different performance counters at least on RISC-V. > > That's not what I try to do here, I just want to test whether the timer, > whatever we have in AV_READ_TIME, is usable. Sure, I can live with that, but I thought that checkasm actually prefered to measure cycles than time periods. > > As things stand, this code won't do anything on RISC-V, sinec > > AV_READ_TIME() actually reads, well, time, not cycles. > > Should I interpret this, as, the current AV_READ_TIME implementation on > RISC-V always succeeds, contrary to the previous implementation (with > rdcycle) which is unavailable on some systems, referencing > 05115a77e012331b6ff5e24bab40e75848447c62? Yes. -- 雷米‧德尼-库尔蒙 http://www.remlab.net/ _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
