Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag <at> mit.edu> writes: > What? My numbers actually show that the new code may be faster -
No, you are misunderstanding the numbers you posted. (Or I misunderstand them but nobody said so yet.) Highest runs are most relevant, skips have to be avoided (afaik). [...] > If you continue to post such stuff that has no basis, I might actually > get tempted into finding out for which floating point values the new > code is significantly faster, craft a relevant audio file, and post it > showing a huge performance difference - my random numbers benchmark > shows there must exist such values. Please do so! > > The more important question is if you can see the same > > changes in the disassembly of af_astats.o as what > > ubitux posted here for a short test function? > > I do. He uses clang/gcc, so do I. Sorry, my understanding fails here (I am not a native speaker): You did look at the disassembly of af_astats.o and there is inlined code instead of a function call? > The reason (irrelevant) is that both > of us run Arch. > > What is "more relevant" is if _you_ can see the changes > on some non Linux platform. If you could show that it is faster on any platform I would already be happy! Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
