On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceho...@ag.or.at> wrote: > Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag <at> mit.edu> writes: > >> To put an end to a long and tortuous thread, and >> due to the lack of relevant outstanding objections, >> pushed. > > To sum it up: > Several developers have explained to you that the > numbers you posted show that FFmpeg is now either > slower or equally fast, you have pushed with a > commit message that claims that your patch makes > FFmpeg faster.
I was far more nuanced because I know there are people like you who do not understand such things. Seems like I failed at that anyway. I am sorry, but I can only repeat the first two lines: "It is well known that fabs and fabsf are at least as fast and sometimes faster than the FFABS macro, at least on the gcc+glibc combination." That statement is completely accurate. I did not claim "within FFmpeg", since like I said usually there is no difference. From where the "slower" comes from god knows. > How do you call such a claim without any base? Look at the asm, etc etc. Clement has already showed the difference. "Without any base" is a completely incorrect and illogical statement. Paul is clearly convinced enough to start using it in his own filters. > Carl Eugen > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
