On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, Krzysztof Pyrkosz via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
I forgot to include the benchmarks in the previous message, here they are: A78: uyvytoyuv420_neon: 6112.5 ( 6.96x) uyvytoyuv422_neon: 6696.0 ( 6.32x) yuyvtoyuv420_neon: 6113.0 ( 6.95x) yuyvtoyuv422_neon: 6695.2 ( 6.31x) A72: uyvytoyuv420_neon: 9512.1 ( 6.09x) uyvytoyuv422_neon: 9766.8 ( 6.32x) yuyvtoyuv420_neon: 9639.1 ( 6.00x) yuyvtoyuv422_neon: 9779.0 ( 6.03x) A53: uyvytoyuv420_neon: 12720.1 ( 9.10x) uyvytoyuv422_neon: 14282.9 ( 6.71x) yuyvtoyuv420_neon: 12637.4 ( 9.15x) yuyvtoyuv422_neon: 14127.6 ( 6.77x) --- libswscale/aarch64/rgb2rgb.c | 16 ++ libswscale/aarch64/rgb2rgb_neon.S | 262 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ tests/checkasm/sw_rgb.c | 63 ++++--- 3 files changed, 318 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
Can you split out the checkasm changes to a separate preceding patch? That makes it easier to reason about it, regarding whether the new test coverage works for archs with existing asm, etc.
// Martin _______________________________________________ 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".
