On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Benoit Fouet wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 12/05/2016 15:22, Matthieu Bouron wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Benoit Fouet
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I mostly have nits remarks.
>>>
>>> On 11/05/2016 18:39, Matthieu Bouron wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Matthieu Bour
Hi,
On 12/05/2016 15:22, Matthieu Bouron wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Benoit Fouet wrote:
Hi,
I mostly have nits remarks.
On 11/05/2016 18:39, Matthieu Bouron wrote:
From: Matthieu Bouron
[...]
diff --git a/libswresample/arm/resample.S b/libswresample/arm/resample.S
new
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Benoit Fouet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I mostly have nits remarks.
>
> On 11/05/2016 18:39, Matthieu Bouron wrote:
>
>> From: Matthieu Bouron
>>
>>
> [...]
>
> diff --git a/libswresample/arm/resample.S b/libswresample/arm/resample.S
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0
Hi,
I mostly have nits remarks.
On 11/05/2016 18:39, Matthieu Bouron wrote:
From: Matthieu Bouron
[...]
diff --git a/libswresample/arm/resample.S b/libswresample/arm/resample.S
new file mode 100644
index 000..13462e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/libswresample/arm/resample.S
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
[
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:02:33PM +0200, Matthieu Bouron wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Reimar Döffinger
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 11.05.2016, at 20:37, Michael Niedermayer
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Matthieu Bouron wrote:
> > >> From: Matthieu Bou
Le 11 mai 2016 6:39 PM, "Matthieu Bouron" a
écrit :
>
> From: Matthieu Bouron
>
> ---
>
> Hello,
>
> Here are some benchmark on a rpi2 of the attached patch.
>
> ./ffmpeg -f lavfi -i
sine=440,aformat=sample_fmts=fltp,asetnsamples=4096,abench=start,aresample=48000,abench=stop
-t 1000 -f null -
>
>
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Reimar Döffinger
wrote:
>
>
> On 11.05.2016, at 20:37, Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Matthieu Bouron wrote:
> >> From: Matthieu Bouron
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Here are some benchmark on a rpi2 of th
On 11.05.2016, at 21:09, James Almer wrote:
> On 5/11/2016 4:04 PM, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
>> otherwise there's a risk that enabling the recently discussed
>> -ftree-vecorize for that file specifically would give better results.
>
> Tree vectorize is enabled for x86 and GCC >= 4.9 only. And ev
On 5/11/2016 4:04 PM, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> otherwise there's a risk that enabling the recently discussed -ftree-vecorize
> for that file specifically would give better results.
Tree vectorize is enabled for x86 and GCC >= 4.9 only. And even then
it may not even remain like that much longer.
On 11.05.2016, at 20:37, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Matthieu Bouron wrote:
>> From: Matthieu Bouron
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Here are some benchmark on a rpi2 of the attached patch.
>>
>> ./ffmpeg -f lavfi -i
>> sine=440,aformat=sample_fmts=
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Matthieu Bouron wrote:
> From: Matthieu Bouron
>
> ---
>
> Hello,
>
> Here are some benchmark on a rpi2 of the attached patch.
>
> ./ffmpeg -f lavfi -i
> sine=440,aformat=sample_fmts=fltp,asetnsamples=4096,abench=start,aresample=48000,abench=stop
> -
From: Matthieu Bouron
---
Hello,
Here are some benchmark on a rpi2 of the attached patch.
./ffmpeg -f lavfi -i
sine=440,aformat=sample_fmts=fltp,asetnsamples=4096,abench=start,aresample=48000,abench=stop
-t 1000 -f null -
With patch:avg=0.001159 speed=44,1x
Without patch: avg=0.001297 s
12 matches
Mail list logo
