On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde >> > <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> This exploits an approach based on the sieve of Eratosthenes, a popular >> >> method for generating prime numbers. >> >> >> >> Tables are identical to previous ones. >> >> >> >> Tested with FATE. Does not work yet with --enable-hardcoded-tables due >> >> to the union and lack of proper WRITE_ARRAY for it. Want to get >> >> feedback >> >> on this; if we always dynamically init it this won't need addressing. >> > >> > >> > I think you're getting ahead of yourself here. Assume for now that the >> > hardcoded-tables feature will continue to exist for a while. >> >> I was referring to just this one, not to the question in general. > > > I was also referring to this case specifically. Assume, for now, that > hardcoded tables for this specific case, will continue to exist.
Then defend it technically please. For instance, you have not addressed the fundamental amortization of table init cost. > > Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
