On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:38:37PM -0300, James Almer wrote: > On 6/11/2024 10:15 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 09:19:46PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > > > C code or compiler built-ins are preferable over inline assembler for > > > byte-swaps as it allows for better optimisations (e.g. instruction > > > scheduling) which would otherwise be impossible. > > > > > > As with f64c2e710fa1a7b59753224e717f57c48462076f for x86 and Arm, > > > this removes the inline assembler on GCC (and Clang) since we now > > > require recent enough compiler versions (this indeed seems to work on > > > AArch64). > > > --- > > > libavutil/aarch64/bswap.h | 56 --------------------------------------- > > > libavutil/avr32/bswap.h | 44 ------------------------------ > > > libavutil/bswap.h | 8 +----- > > > libavutil/sh4/bswap.h | 48 --------------------------------- > > > > As you are writing that this preferrable for better optimisations > > Please provide benchmarks (for sh4, avr32) > > This is a ridiculous request, considering nobody has such hardware at all.
Then I think its a ridiculous claim that this optimizes the code I mean, at some point there was hardware and these optimisations did improve speed. This patch is not removing the code because its a rare (or dead) platform, it removes it with the claim that this would "allows for better optimisations" Iam sorry but i do not see why asking for the claim in the commit message to be backed up with facts being ridiculous The claim in the commit message may be ridiculous thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB No great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness. -- Aristotle
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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".
