On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: >> Le decadi 10 brumaire, an CCXXIV, Ganesh Ajjanagadde a écrit : >>> Entirely possible. I just did this as a low hanging fruit. I highly >>> suspect that the algorithm can be improved (see Michael's comment). >>> The start/stop was just around the qsort statement. Since you asked >> >> So the speedup observed may be completely irrelevant.
For the benefit of the thread, here is a benchmark for the find_motion function to address this point: new: 2075495840 decicycles in find_motion, 1 runs, 0 skips 1981653450 decicycles in find_motion, 2 runs, 0 skips 1963960877 decicycles in find_motion, 4 runs, 0 skips 1995843222 decicycles in find_motion, 8 runs, 0 skips 1954257600 decicycles in find_motion, 16 runs, 0 skips 1914343743 decicycles in find_motion, 32 runs, 0 skips 1900114312 decicycles in find_motion, 64 runs, 0 skips 1883816712 decicycles in find_motion, 128 runs, 0 skips 1847216223 decicycles in find_motion, 256 runs, 0 skips 1807254028 decicycles in find_motion, 512 runs, 0 skips 1815531917 decicycles in find_motion, 1024 runs, 0 skips old: 2137526850 decicycles in find_motion, 1 runs, 0 skips 2032845285 decicycles in find_motion, 2 runs, 0 skips 2049874912 decicycles in find_motion, 4 runs, 0 skips 2047886076 decicycles in find_motion, 8 runs, 0 skips 1989838803 decicycles in find_motion, 16 runs, 0 skips 1929553950 decicycles in find_motion, 32 runs, 0 skips 1929938301 decicycles in find_motion, 64 runs, 0 skips 1914471658 decicycles in find_motion, 128 runs, 0 skips 1975107739 decicycles in find_motion, 256 runs, 0 skips 1879646457 decicycles in find_motion, 512 runs, 0 skips 1900282483 decicycles in find_motion, 1024 runs, 0 skips I leave it to the judgement of others whether or not this is significant enough. >> >>> this, I will add it to the commit message. >> >> I would have appreciated if you waited for the discussion around the patch >> to finish before pushing it. > > That was an inexcusable misread on my end: I viewed (incorrectly and > hastily) your message as a general remark. Sorry. > >> >> Regards, >> >> -- >> Nicolas George >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
