On 3/10/2017 12:43 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote: > On 3/10/17, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 3/10/2017 10:50 AM, Paul B Mahol wrote: >>> On 3/10/17, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:47:38 +0100 >>>> Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 3/10/17, Wang Bin <wbse...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't think this is good idea. >>>> >>>> Why not? >>> >>> Because it changes something that was working before. >> >> The only valid reason i could see to not go with this change is >> if the size gains are minimal and the speed loss considerable. >> Otherwise, if the end result is smaller than -Os then there's no >> reason to not use it. > > OP didn't posted results at all, so applying this would be blind move > IMHO.
Agree. Some numbers would be good (resulting binary size, benchmarks of at least popular codecs, etc). _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
