On 19/09/16 17:32, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 19/09/16 12:59, Diego Biurrun wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:53:33PM +0200, Alexandra Hájková wrote: >>>>> %if HAVE_AVX2_EXTERNAL >>>>> INIT_YMM avx2 >>>>> IDCT_DC 16, 2, 8 >>>>> @@ -100,6 +804,12 @@ IDCT_DC_NL 8, 10 >>>>> IDCT_DC 16, 4, 10 >>>>> IDCT_DC 32, 16, 10 >>>>> >>>>> +INIT_XMM avx >>>>> +IDCT_4x4 10 >>>>> +IDCT_8x8 10 >>>>> +IDCT_16x16 10 >>>>> +IDCT_32x32 10 >>>> >>>> It seems rather silly to duplicate all those functions when the only >>>> difference between them is the value of a constant. Perhaps it'd be >>>> better to change that into a parameter. >>>> >>> The problem is the same constant goes into funtion name as well. >> >> So? Just parameterize the function name then. >> > > That would add more boilerplate instead of cutting it. > > I'd add a macro to generate the set and spare some boilerplate, I guess > that's what Anton is suggesting.
Apparently Anton actually was suggesting to add an actual parameter to the functions. That would reduce the performance even in the C code since you cannot constant-propagate and compute a compile-time quite a bit of values. I wouldn't do that. lu _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
