On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> 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. > > This particular doc doesn't give you a blanket argument. Specifically > if the maintainer objects on account of complexity, you should honor > that - the doc even says as much (ie. only "clean and simple" being > justified)
It does not. And of course I honor a maintainer's wishes. If he refuses to accept a performance improvement, so be it. I just want it clear that from my view this is still ridiculous given FFmpeg's track record on these sorts of things in the past. I also find it ironic that there are objections to this on the lines of "what about some (unspecified) platform?", when bccc81dfa was accepted with no problems. On a broken libm, or a libm with a slow expf (see lavu/libm, sometimes it falls back to exp, likely in at least some MSVC version), this is an obvious performance regression. > > - Hendrik > _______________________________________________ > 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
