Hi, On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Luca Barbato <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26/03/12 11:54, Kostya Shishkov wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:32:55PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Kostya Shishkov >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Can we get at least several compilers and compiler version output for the >>>> functions that use it? It's inline assembly, so compiler output for these >>>> may vary greatly and fail register allocation for some other GCC version, >>>> for instance. When we have it, then we can discuss it further. >>> >>> gcc-4.2.1: better after patch (less and shorter instructions) >>> gcc-4.2.1/llvm: same number of instructions before/after, but shorter >>> instructions after patch >>> gcc-4.5.3: same number of instructions before/after, but shorter >>> instructions after patch >>> gcc-4.6.3: same number of instructions before/after, but shorter >>> instructions after patch >>> gcc-4.7.0: better after patch (less and shorter instructions) >>> clang-3.0: same number of instructions before/after, but shorter >>> instructions after patch >>> >>> Complete disassembly attached in before.txt and after.txt with each of >>> the above compilers. >> >> Looks legit, what do other people think? > > I tried to compare it and seems that the patch speeds up everything > sensibly on linux/gcc-4.6.2. (ran 30 times for each interesting patch of > the set, few times it got worse many times it got better I thrown away > outliers and seems overall better)
OK, so are there no more objections to the whole patchset then? I'd like to push this. Ronald _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
