On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Rostislav Pehlivanov <atomnu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 March 2016 at 18:14, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Per doc/optimization.txt, aac is a widely used codec, so even a 0.1% >> improvement in aac is fair game for optimizations, assuming it is a >> small code change. Of course, one can debate whether this is small or >> not. I view it as simple and clean, others may disagree. > > > Nope, I still doubt that that 0.1% is a definite performance improvement.
Then change doc/optimization.txt. > Sure it might be on your machine but who knows, maybe for someone else > it'll be a 0.1% decrease in performance or hell, a 1% decrease. Don't speculate, show evidence. This is something that can be said about essentially all patches that affect performance. For example, who knows, a compiler may actually omit worse code on a certain architecture for something that should be an improvement. This just highlights the ridiculousness of this line of reasoning. > Maybe if > you ran the test when the Moon was overhead the extra decrease in gravity > could affect a nearby sea or lake and speed up water evaporation, > saturating the air with more moisture and therefore increasing its ability > to contain heat causing your CPU to throttle less since it's cooler. This is very creative and funny, but is not part of serious discussion. > Still far too small to justify this patch as a non-placebo improvement. > _______________________________________________ > 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
