tis 2024-06-11 klockan 18:10 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 05:50:35PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> [...]
> > Perhaps we should demand platforms for which we have asm also have
> > FATE
> > instances?
>
> qemu based fate we have for sh-4:
> https://fate.ffmpeg.org/?quer
Le tiistaina 11. kesäkuuta 2024, 19.04.17 EEST Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> then simply remove avr32 with that explanation (no C11 compiler, and any
> other reason)
No. Måns and my optimisation arguments stand, even if it is purely
hypothetical in the case of AVR32 (for which there is no worki
Le tiistaina 11. kesäkuuta 2024, 19.10.04 EEST Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 05:50:35PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Perhaps we should demand platforms for which we have asm also have FATE
> > instances?
>
> qemu based fate we have for sh-4:
> https://fate.ff
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 01:08:04PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 6/11/2024 12:57 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:38:37PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > > On 6/11/2024 10:15 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 09:19:46PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Cour
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 05:50:35PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
[...]
> Perhaps we should demand platforms for which we have asm also have FATE
> instances?
qemu based fate we have for sh-4:
https://fate.ffmpeg.org/?query=subarch:sh4%2F%2F
thx
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF
On 6/11/2024 12:57 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:38:37PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
On 6/11/2024 10:15 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 09:19:46PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
C code or compiler built-ins are preferable over inline assemble
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 06:28:30PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le tiistaina 11. kesäkuuta 2024, 16.15.19 EEST Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 09:19:46PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > > C code or compiler built-ins are preferable over inline assembler for
>
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 5:57 PM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:38:37PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > On 6/11/2024 10:15 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 09:19:46PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > > > C code or compiler built-ins are prefe
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:38:37PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 6/11/2024 10:15 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 09:19:46PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > > C code or compiler built-ins are preferable over inline assembler for
> > > byte-swaps as it allows for bet
tis 2024-06-11 klockan 12:38 -0300 skrev James Almer:
> On 6/11/2024 10:15 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 09:19:46PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont
> > wrote:
> > > C code or compiler built-ins are preferable over inline assembler
> > > for
> > > byte-swaps as it allows for
On 6/11/2024 10:15 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 09:19:46PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
C code or compiler built-ins are preferable over inline assembler for
byte-swaps as it allows for better optimisations (e.g. instruction
scheduling) which would otherwise be imp
Le tiistaina 11. kesäkuuta 2024, 16.15.19 EEST Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 09:19:46PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > C code or compiler built-ins are preferable over inline assembler for
> > byte-swaps as it allows for better optimisations (e.g. instruction
> > sc
On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 09:19:46PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> C code or compiler built-ins are preferable over inline assembler for
> byte-swaps as it allows for better optimisations (e.g. instruction
> scheduling) which would otherwise be impossible.
>
> As with f64c2e710fa1a7b59753224e7
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 2:20 PM Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>
> C code or compiler built-ins are preferable over inline assembler for
> byte-swaps as it allows for better optimisations (e.g. instruction
> scheduling) which would otherwise be impossible.
>
> As with f64c2e710fa1a7b59753224e717f57c484
C code or compiler built-ins are preferable over inline assembler for
byte-swaps as it allows for better optimisations (e.g. instruction
scheduling) which would otherwise be impossible.
As with f64c2e710fa1a7b59753224e717f57c48462076f for x86 and Arm,
this removes the inline assembler on GCC (and
15 matches
Mail list logo
