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 working compiler). It is a *general* argument. Removing the AVR32 support is not the point of *this* patch, so you are asking me to misrepresent what the patch does and why. As for SH4, James already addressed that. > but if a commit message says the code is removed because that "allows for > better optimisations" then yes i ask for benchmarks "Allows for better optimisations" means exactly that: enable compilers to *potentially* optimise better. I never claimed that it actually improved performance in any given particular case. Nevertheless it will make performance worse in one and only one case: a defective/half-baked compiler: missing the byte-swap instruction (if it exists) and/or a proper scheduling model, for the target. In other words, you are essentially arguing that FFmpeg should be optimised for bad C compilers instead of good ones. -- 雷米‧德尼-库尔蒙 http://www.remlab.net/ _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
