Hi, On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Kostya Shishkov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 09:12:05AM -0800, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Kostya Shishkov >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 09:03:44AM -0800, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Kostya Shishkov >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 08:56:09AM -0800, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Kostya Shishkov >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 07:40:30AM -0800, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> $attached. Makes it use get/release_buffer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's kind of hacky, perhaps I could force edge emulation so that >> >> >> >> the % >> >> >> >> and / mess isn't necessary, but I don't think performance matters >> >> >> >> all >> >> >> >> that much for a game codec. If it does, someone else wanna finish >> >> >> >> this? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I don't think you should do all that stuff. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > This codec uses LZ77-style compression algorithm on the whole buffer >> >> >> > and IMO >> >> >> > it's better to let it uncompress the buffer as it likes and copy it >> >> >> > to output. >> >> >> >> >> >> I can force CODEC_FLAG_EMU_EDGE to make that easier, perhaps. >> >> > >> >> > The question is why? It will effectively result in nearly the same code >> >> > except >> >> > that picture buffer will be allocated properly. IMO codecs with such >> >> > design >> >> > can suffer from additional memcpy from internal buffer with >> >> > stride=width*bpp >> >> > to frame with whatever stride it has. >> >> >> >> For one, with Anton's changes, it'll cause buf->pix_fmt/w/h to be >> >> initialized. >> > >> > I agree the current way is hacky, the question is if it's really better to >> > 1) complicate code with direct rendering to the frame with handling padding >> > or >> > 2) direct render into frames and forcing linesize = width * bpp >> > or >> > 3) use internal buffers and copy lines from it into output frame >> >> Well, 3 is slower by thousands of millicycles. > > Does it matter here?
Since I wrote the patch already... Ronald _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
