On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> > wrote: > >> It is still "speed critical" enough for people to retain >> CONFIG_HARDCODED_TABLES. My goal here is simple: I want to get cycle >> count down enough so that hardcoded tables can be removed here. > > > Can you explain why? Does CONFIG_HARDCODED_TABLES hurt your eyes? Or is it > morally corrupt? Or something else?
Please refrain from hyperbole, it has nothing to do with my eyes or "moral corruption". More seriously, I have mentioned this already: wm4 said it is a worthy goal. wm4, being a lead of mpv (a main client of FFmpeg), is someone whose opinion I take seriously and think hard about, even if I don't agree with it personally in some cases. Many things I did in the past were not liked by many here, and are still not liked by many going by recent IRC logs. I wanted to find a common ground, and here was something where I actually agreed with wm4 even from my own convictions. Again, this goes back to what I said: I do things not because I find it interesting, but because someone whose needs are more than mine benefits from it. More generally, I find something very inconsistent here: table generation is claimed to not be "speed-critical", yet there are a few people here who still think it is "critical enough" to justify retaining hardcoded tables, and the associated complexity of the configure/build system. > > Ronald > _______________________________________________ > 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
