On 27/03/12 08:11, Måns Rullgård wrote: > You have not done anything to address the issue of why code that > _should_ be worse is actually compiling better. Allowing such anomalies > to go without investigation is irresponsible at best.
I'll try to reduce that code soon myself, lately I had been too busy and the best I could was to try and test it myself with the timer. > I realise, however, that you don't give a fuck about this and that you > are determined to push this hack of a patch no matter what. Enjoy your > victory. As I said, hadn't it performing decently, I'd had just have that bit disabled for the non-working gcc. Would going this route address your concern till I, Ronald, or whoever manages to get the time to investigate the issue in depth? lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
