On Sun, 5 Feb 2017, Janne Grunau wrote:
>> // out1 = in1 + in2
>> // out2 = in1 - in2
>> .macro butterfly_8h out1, out2, in1, in2
>>@@ -463,7 +510,7 @@ function idct16x16_dc_add_neon
>> ret
>> endfunc
>>
>>-function idct16
>>+.macro idct16_full
>> dmbutterfly0 v16, v24, v16, v24, v2, v3, v4, v5, v6, v7 // v16 =
t0a, v24 = t1a
>> dmbutterfly v20, v28, v0.h[1], v0.h[2], v2, v3, v4, v5 // v20 =
t2a, v28 = t3a
>> dmbutterfly v18, v30, v0.h[3], v0.h[4], v2, v3, v4, v5 // v18 =
t4a, v30 = t7a
>>@@ -485,7 +532,10 @@ function idct16
>> dmbutterfly0 v22, v26, v22, v26, v2, v3, v18, v19, v30, v31
// v22 = t6a, v26 = t5a
>> dmbutterfly v23, v25, v0.h[1], v0.h[2], v18, v19, v30, v31
// v23 = t9a, v25 = t14a
>> dmbutterfly v27, v21, v0.h[1], v0.h[2], v18, v19, v30, v31,
neg=1 // v27 = t13a, v21 = t10a
>>+ idct16_end
>
>I think it would be clearer if idct16_end is used directly from the macro.
>it would probably also make sense to move idct16_end and avoid the
>idct16_full macro. The patch might be smaller and it is immediately
>obvious that there is no code change but the resulting code is more
>comlicated than it needs to be. same applies to arm if we go with
>alternative 1.
Ok, so you mean like this?
function idct16
dmbutterfly...
....
idct16_end
endfunc
