On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:08:19AM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Michael Niedermayer < > > mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 07:14:43AM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Michael Niedermayer > >> <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 07:28:27AM -0500, Dan Parrot wrote: > >> > > > On Wed, 2016-07-06 at 09:07 +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > >> > > [...] > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > One other thing: why didn't this come up when the earlier patch was > >> > > > submitted and applied? > >> > > > >> > > community patch review is not a reproduceable process, depending on > >> > > who has time and does the review, different things can be found and > >> > > pointed out, and people have also different oppinions. > >> > > Real consistency can possibly only be achived by having an active > >> > > maintainer that does all review ... > >> > > > >> > > To be more precisse the other patch was applied due to this comment > >> > > IIRC: > >> > > "If this patch works (FATE passes on ppc64) and is faster than > >> > > the plain c functions then it can be committed as is" > >> > > >> > > >> > How much faster was it? > >> > >> There where several benchmarks posted, one is here: > >> https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-June/196022.html > >> it also contains some arguments why the speedup is less than on x86 > > > > > > I don't think these numbers are very convincing... > > > > The arguments, on the other hand, are not facts, they are hunches, so they > > are essentially meaningless. > > > > I would suggest to revert the patch > > > [..] > > So, this hasn't been reverted yet, is there any particular reason why it > hasn't? > > Again, the speedup is practically meaningless, the code unreviewed, and it > will have to be rewritten by whoever finishes #5570. Can we please agree > reverting is the best option - and then revert?
i think if you want to "mentor" this you should just do what you need to do to mentor this ... -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Its not that you shouldnt use gotos but rather that you should write readable code and code with gotos often but not always is less readable
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
