On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Diego Biurrun wrote:

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 01:57:34PM +0200, Alexandra Hájková wrote:

>> +void checkasm_check_hevc_add_res(void)
>> +{
>> +    int bit_depth;
>> +
>> +    for (bit_depth = 8; bit_depth <= 10; bit_depth++) {
>> +        HEVCDSPContext h;
>> +
>> +        ff_hevc_dsp_init(&h, bit_depth);
>> +        check_add_res(h, bit_depth);
>> +    }
>
> I didn't see you add 9-bit versions of the assembly functions, why do
> you test 9 bits?
>
Because there's no 9 bit SIMD function, it's not tested but the code
looks simpler this way.

If there is nothing to test, don't test it. Just skip over the 9-bit
test by incrementing your counter variable by 2 instead of 1.

I would argue the other way; just because there's currently no SIMD for it, we shouldn't skip it. Is 9 bit a valid choice here? If it is, keep it in the test - it won't cost anything if there actually aren't any SIMD functions, and if there are, they will be tested. If it isn't valid (as in, the dsp context init functions aren't supposed to handle it), it should of course be skipped.

// Martin
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel

Reply via email to