On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Muhammad Faiz <mfc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Muhammad Faiz <mfc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I use intrinsic because writing asm using nasm or inline asm >>>> is difficult task for me. >>>> >>> >>> We have intentionally avoided intrinsics so far, because the result is >>> extremely compiler dependent, and I don't think we should just start >> >> What does the result means. Code correctness or performance? >> > > Performance and code complexity, not to mention readability and > possibly portability.
For performance, I tolerate if intrinsic is slower than asm/inline asm, or vary between compiler. > For a little extra effort, you get a solution thats consistent in > performance, generally easier to read since its a style everyone here > is used to, and proven to work on every build configuration we have. > In my opinion, intrinsic is more readable. > IMHO its totally worth learning how to do it, over just shoehorning > some intrinsics in "because its easier". > It will need time. But probably I will try it. Thank's _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
