Hi, On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 12:14 PM Zhao Zhili <quinkbl...@foxmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 3, 2024, at 22:17, Rémi Denis-Courmont <r...@remlab.net> wrote: > > > > Le maanantaina 3. kesäkuuta 2024, 16.11.15 EEST Zhao Zhili a écrit : > >>> See https://github.com/mstorsjo/FFmpeg/actions/runs/9346228714 for one > >>> example run of these actions with your patches. > >> Wow, it’s very helpful. This is the action result of the updated patch: > >> > >> https://github.com/quink-black/FFmpeg/actions/runs/9350348848 > >> > >> https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2024-June/328786.html > >> > >> The test still failed on x86, but success on all arm64 platform and > >> longarch. I have tried to call rgb24ToY_c and ff_rgb24ToY_avx > >> directly and compare the results, they don't match. I’m confused. > > > > As Martin write, some x86 code is imprecise, or even wrong. > > On x86: > > With the following command: > ./ffmpeg -bitexact -cpuflags 0 -f lavfi -i testsrc -frames 1 -pix_fmt > yuv420p -f framemd5 - > 0, 0, 0, 1, 115200, > d6b3abfc5280311c2758d5e4028c07b5 > > Without “-cpuflags 0” > ./ffmpeg -bitexact -f lavfi -i testsrc -frames 1 -pix_fmt yuv420p -f > framemd5 - > 0, 0, 0, 1, 115200, > 1d302ce90bd5b6eec681730cc0868be4 > > It's indeed non bitexact. > > On aarch64 with the neon implementation I can get the same result as > "-cpuflags 0": > ./ffmpeg -bitexact -f lavfi -i testsrc -frames 1 -pix_fmt yuv420p -f > framemd5 - > 0, 0, 0, 1, 115200, > d6b3abfc5280311c2758d5e4028c07b5 > > Now I can disable the test for x86 and continue the work on aarch64. > Uhm, that's a bit hacky. I think things like -sws_flags +bitexact need to be after the -i argument and then it might work? Ronald _______________________________________________ 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".
