Sponsored-by: Sovereign Tech Fund
Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer
---
libpostproc/Makefile | 2 +
libpostproc/tests/blocktest.c | 112 +
tests/Makefile| 1 +
tests/fate/libpostproc.mak| 6 +
tests/ref/fate/blocktest | 300
In date Monday 2025-03-31 19:27:13 +, softworkz . wrote:
[...]
> > I'm fine with the changes assuming it passes fate.
> >
> > I don't know if you have push commit rights, if needed I will locally
> > test and push them after a few days to let other developers to
> > comment.
>
> Hi Stefano,
>
Hi James
On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 07:45:23PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> Regression since 19e9a203b7b8e613840b055cdf68303a4fb84581.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Almer
> ---
> libavutil/dict.c | 19 ++-
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/libavutil/dic
Marton Balint (HE12025-04-06):
> I think a log flag to completely hide the addresses makes sense, and can be
> implemented cleanly and reliably in avutil/log. I can totally support that.
I do not. The more I think on it, the more I consider this whole
endeavour is completely misguided.
One of our
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Nicolas George
> Sent: Montag, 7. April 2025 11:14
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] SW's Patchsets Overview
>
> Marton Balint (HE12025-04-06):
> > I think a log flag to completely hi
Hi Everyone
April 8 - 18:00 UTC is GSoC contributor application deadline
If you are a contributor make sure you submit your application before that
If you are a mentor make sure contributors you are working with are aware
of this, in case there are any who have not submitted their application y
On Sun, Apr 06, 2025 at 10:13:23PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 4/6/2025 8:44 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 06, 2025 at 08:29:42PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > > On 4/3/2025 7:50 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > This improves speed by providing more independent things for
The rounds value is constant and can be one of three hardcoded values, so
instead of checking it on every loop, just split the function into three
different implementations for each value.
Before:
aes_decrypt_128_aesni: 93.8 (47.58x)
aes_decrypt_192_aesni:
Andreas, what about my patch? I submitted a fix some time ago
(https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/patch/20250325085030.1306501-1-
d.kozin...@samsung.com/_ .
Is there still something wrong?
I'm waiting for some feedback.
We would like to close the topic now.
> -Original Message-
