Quoting Vittorio Giovara (2015-05-01 03:44:30) > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Anton Khirnov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Quoting Vittorio Giovara (2015-04-27 20:13:25) > >> They are just duplicates of AVCodecContext members so use them directly. > > > > Have you benchmarked this? > > > > The reason there are copies of those fields is probably more efficient > > cache usage. I am not sure it actually matters anywhere, but it should > > be tested. > > Well I did a rough check with make -j fate on the currently published > set (6 patches) under a few configurations, but didn't find a huge > impact on performance (as expected). > > * clean master > (+debug -opt +asm) > real 0m59.735s > user 6m26.844s > sys 0m9.752s > (+debug -opt -asm) > real 1m41.182s > user 9m54.168s > sys 0m10.552s > (-debug +opt +asm) > real 0m24.618s > user 2m29.692s > sys 0m9.124s > (-debug +opt -asm) > real 0m37.459s > user 3m18.604s > sys 0m9.376s > > * my set > (+debug -opt +asm) > real 0m59.714s > user 6m24.404s > sys 0m9.648s > (+debug -opt -asm) > real 1m40.503s > user 9m57.104s > sys 0m9.880s > (-debug +opt +asm) > real 0m24.618s > user 2m31.316s > sys 0m9.080s > (-debug +opt -asm) > real 0m33.260s > user 3m15.884s > sys 0m9.304s > > Thanks to Luca for lending me the test machine.
FATE tests so many things that it's not really a good benchmark of any specific codec. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
