On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 09:49:33PM -0800, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > Carl Eugen Hoyos ag.or.at> writes:
> >
> >> Ganesh Ajjanagadde mit.edu> writes:
> >>
> >> > No one has told me what is interesting
> >>
> >> Did
On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 09:11:28PM -0800, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 04:04:02AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 08:34:55PM -0800, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 09:11:28PM -0800, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Michael Niedermayer
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 04:04:02AM +0100, Michael
Hi Ganesh,
On 04.01.2016 06:49, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> Generally, my strengths are in algorithmic/mathematical/numerical
> improvements. I have a strong interest in security (both its
> "practical" and "theoretical" variants), but with nowhere near the
> same level of knowledge.
>
>
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Clément Bœsch wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 09:49:33PM -0800, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> > Carl Eugen Hoyos ag.or.at> writes:
>> >
>> >> Ganesh Ajjanagadde mit.edu>
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 08:34:55PM -0800, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> This gets rid of some branches to speed up table generation slightly
> (impact higher on mulaw than alaw). Tables are identical to before,
> tested with FATE.
>
> Sample benchmark (Haswell, GNU/Linux+gcc):
> old:
> 313494
Carl Eugen Hoyos ag.or.at> writes:
> Ganesh Ajjanagadde mit.edu> writes:
>
> > No one has told me what is interesting
>
> Did you look at tickets #4441 or #4085?
Or ticket #4829 or a j2k issue?
Carl Eugen
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
Ganesh Ajjanagadde mit.edu> writes:
> No one has told me what is interesting
Did you look at tickets #4441 or #4085?
(Careful about the license for the second one.)
But you can only decide for yourself what you
find interesting...
Carl Eugen
___
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
>> It is still "speed critical" enough for people to retain
>> CONFIG_HARDCODED_TABLES. My goal here is simple: I want to get cycle
>> count down enough so that hardcoded tables can be removed here.
>
> How are you going to
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 04:04:02AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 08:34:55PM -0800, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> > This gets rid of some branches to speed up table generation slightly
> > (impact higher on mulaw than alaw). Tables are identical to before,
> > tested
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Carl Eugen Hoyos ag.or.at> writes:
>
>> Ganesh Ajjanagadde mit.edu> writes:
>>
>> > No one has told me what is interesting
>>
>> Did you look at tickets #4441 or #4085?
>
> Or ticket #4829 or a j2k issue?
Thanks a lot
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 04:04:02AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 08:34:55PM -0800, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> > This gets rid of some branches to speed up table generation
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 08:34:55PM -0800, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> This gets rid of some branches to speed up table generation slightly
>> (impact higher on mulaw than alaw). Tables are identical to before,
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 08:34:55PM -0800, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> This gets rid of some branches to speed up table generation slightly
> (impact higher on mulaw than alaw). Tables are identical to before,
> tested with FATE.
>
> Sample benchmark (Haswell, GNU/Linux+gcc):
> old:
> 313494
> It is still "speed critical" enough for people to retain
> CONFIG_HARDCODED_TABLES. My goal here is simple: I want to get cycle
> count down enough so that hardcoded tables can be removed here.
How are you going to guarantee this across all arches?
Whilst by all means feel free to work on what
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
wrote:
> It is still "speed critical" enough for people to retain
> CONFIG_HARDCODED_TABLES. My goal here is simple: I want to get cycle
> count down enough so that hardcoded tables can be removed here.
Can you explain
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
>> It is still "speed critical" enough for people to retain
>> CONFIG_HARDCODED_TABLES. My goal here is simple: I want to get cycle
>> count down enough so that hardcoded tables can be removed here.
>
> How are you going to
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
> wrote:
>
>> It is still "speed critical" enough for people to retain
>> CONFIG_HARDCODED_TABLES. My goal here is simple: I want to get
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
wrote:
> This gets rid of some branches to speed up table generation slightly
> (impact higher on mulaw than alaw). Tables are identical to before,
> tested with FATE.
>
> Sample benchmark (Haswell, GNU/Linux+gcc):
> old:
This gets rid of some branches to speed up table generation slightly
(impact higher on mulaw than alaw). Tables are identical to before,
tested with FATE.
Sample benchmark (Haswell, GNU/Linux+gcc):
old:
313494 decicycles in build_alaw_table,4094 runs, 2 skips
315959 decicycles in
20 matches
Mail list logo