Hi, On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:46 PM, James Darnley <jdarn...@obe.tv> wrote:
> The labels get stripped leading to (slightly) nicer disassembly from > objdump. > --- > libavcodec/x86/h264_idct.asm | 24 ++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/libavcodec/x86/h264_idct.asm b/libavcodec/x86/h264_idct.asm > index 878ff02..dde40e9 100644 > --- a/libavcodec/x86/h264_idct.asm > +++ b/libavcodec/x86/h264_idct.asm > @@ -846,7 +846,7 @@ h264_add8x4_idct_sse2: > %macro add16_sse2_cycle 2 > movzx r0, word [r4+%2] > test r0, r0 > - jz .cycle%1end > + jz %%skip So I've thought about it some more. I think I'd first need to understand what you're doing here and why. It seems to me that the issue you're trying to address is that when you look at disassembly (in e.g. a debugger or objdump), it goes from label to label (where function entry is also a label), and so every function-local label means disassembly is cut off as a block, right? (Each block then represents a jump target or loop or something like that.) And you don't like that, so you're getting rid of the labels, right? So, if all of this is correct, then I agree that the output of tools like debugger/objdump is irritating. In fact, it has irritated me forever in any codec's DSP functions. But it also seems like we're moving away from a de facto convention if we don't use dot-labels anymore. If we do it for h264_idct, we should do it everywhere (for consistency). Is that what people want? Maybe we should follow convention and fix objdump to include all dot labels in a block if a CLI option is provided? Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
