On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Kieran Kunhya <kier...@obe.tv> 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. > > How are you going to guarantee this across all arches?
I don't. But what really matters is the static vs runtime cost, see e.g the thread I created. The ratio will be far more similar across arches. > Whilst by all means feel free to work on what you want, there are way > more interesting things out there. No one has told me what is interesting, and in the last 6 months, I have not seen a commit that I find interesting either to get an idea of what can be done for the project. This is nothing against the authors, who are all fantastic people, just my opinion. I am here to serve the project, not because I find it "interesting", but because it lacks manpower, and I find its goals worthy. This philosophy has already been mentioned: https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-October/182508.html. > > Kieran > _______________________________________________ > 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
