On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 08:52:15PM +0100, Benoit Fouet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 30/11/2014 13:11, Christophe Gisquet a écrit :
> >2014-11-30 13:03 GMT+01:00 Michael Niedermayer :
> >>not really, no,
> >>that was also why i posted a patch for this, i wasnt sure this is
> >>worth the extra table size
> >
Hi,
Le 30/11/2014 13:11, Christophe Gisquet a écrit :
2014-11-30 13:03 GMT+01:00 Michael Niedermayer :
not really, no,
that was also why i posted a patch for this, i wasnt sure this is
worth the extra table size
No strong opinion here, I don't think the increased memory/potential
speed impact
2014-11-30 13:03 GMT+01:00 Michael Niedermayer :
> not really, no,
> that was also why i posted a patch for this, i wasnt sure this is
> worth the extra table size
No strong opinion here, I don't think the increased memory/potential
speed impact are critical, in particular for this codec. Mostly
m
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 12:19:50PM +0100, Christophe Gisquet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2014-11-30 12:11 GMT+01:00 Michael Niedermayer :
> > This very slightly improves quality at the expense of 96kb more memory for
> > tables
>
> I'm not concerned by this case, but maybe put that under CONFIG_SMALL
> or
Hi,
2014-11-30 12:11 GMT+01:00 Michael Niedermayer :
> This very slightly improves quality at the expense of 96kb more memory for
> tables
I'm not concerned by this case, but maybe put that under CONFIG_SMALL
or something related?
Also, out of curiosity rather than concern:
> -0568b0b9a72e31559
This very slightly improves quality at the expense of 96kb more memory for
tables
Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer
---
libavcodec/pcm.c |4 ++--
libavcodec/pcm_tablegen.h | 12 ++--
tests/ref/acodec/pcm-alaw |6 +++---
tests/ref/acodec/pcm-mulaw |6 +++---
te
