Hi, On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Martin Storsjö <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > > Hi, >> >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Martin Storsjö <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The dc-only mode is already checked to work correctly above, but this >>> allows benchmarking this mode for performance tuning, and allows making >>> sure that it actually is correctly hooked up. >>> --- >>> tests/checkasm/vp9dsp.c | 6 ++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/tests/checkasm/vp9dsp.c b/tests/checkasm/vp9dsp.c >>> index 690e0cf..b9d1c73 100644 >>> --- a/tests/checkasm/vp9dsp.c >>> +++ b/tests/checkasm/vp9dsp.c >>> @@ -297,6 +297,12 @@ static void check_itxfm(void) >>> } >>> bench_new(dst, sz * SIZEOF_PIXEL, coef, sz * sz); >>> } >>> + if (txtp == 0 && tx != 4) { >>> + if (check_func(dsp.itxfm_add[tx][txtp], >>> "vp9_inv_%s_%dx%d_dc_add", >>> + txtp_types[txtp], sz, sz)) { >>> + bench_new(dst, sz * SIZEOF_PIXEL, coef, 1); >>> + } >>> + } >>> } >>> } >>> report("itxfm"); >>> -- >>> 2.7.4 >>> >> >> >> I had a different local modification that allows tuning all the relevant >> sub-IDCTs, basically re-arranging the loops so check_func is inside the >> sub-IDCT loop and we bench each sub-IDCT separately. That's more generic >> and probably more useful. >> > > Right, that's probably more useful. Would you care to finish that > modification to get it upstreamed in either project? Sure, no problem. Ronald _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
