[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] H.264/SQV3 separation: h264data.h

[Baptiste Coudurier]

Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 12:32 -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> Uoti Urpala wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 11:48 -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>>>> Well, considering the "random" factor is discussed here, I 
>>>> won't take words for granted. If you want to make your point 
>>>> valid, give a code example.
>>> How would giving a code example affect its validity?
>> You know, what is called "proof".
> 
> What would it prove? I already gave the results.

No, you threw numbers saying something you cannot prove, and you assume
we should trust your words. This is stupid.

> You can't reproduce the same ones so it's pointless to give the exact
>  same code. But you should be able to reproduce the existence of 
> random variation with the method I gave.

If I cannot reproduce, your point is null and your claim is absurd.

>>> Did my description of the change not give enough information 
>>> about it? It's not like you could yourself verify that the 
>>> particular example I used behaves the way I said - it's unlikely
>>>  the random effects would be the same on your system.
>>> 
>>> If you want to test the random effects yourself I gave one way to
>>>  do that above.
>> What are you trying to say here ?
> 
> That you can't reproduce the same random values I did. If you want to
>  verify the existence of random variation you need to find the 
> samples that show differences on your system.

This is pure absurdity.

>> That no benchmark ever can be trusted, because it has everything 
>> has random effects on every system ?
> 
> That has nothing to do with what I was saying in the part I quoted.

Let's go forward, will you ? This has everything to do with what you
said. You claim that since every change produce random effects on every
computer, no benchmark is worth, no proof is worth being showed.

If you want to say anything, please give valid arguments.

This is all absurd and stupid IMHO.

[...]

>>>>>>>> if i remove some unneeded code and that results in a 
>>>>>>>> 0.5% gain on one machine chances are it also does on 
>>>>>>>> most others, its not as if the removial of code will 
>>>>>>>> likely make it slower.
>>>>>>> You can expect that removal of useless code won't make 
>>>>>>> things slower _on average_. However if the CPU use of the
>>>>>>>  removed code was significantly less than 0.5%
>>>>>> ??? Code was _useless_ so CPU did never _use_ it.
>>>>> By "useless" I mean both unused code and code which is 
>>>>> executed but makes no difference to the computation result.
>>>> I hope and assume this is not the case with current code, so 
>>>> your point is void.
>>> Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. What are you trying to 
>>> say?
>> Im saying that your point is void because the current code is 
>> assumed to
> 
> Which "your point"?

I won't repeat myself. You are intelligent to understand and no playing
around, I hope.

> [...]
> 
>> not contain anything useless, and adding "useless" code would be 
>> stupid, but I thought mentioning this would be useless as this is 
>> obvious.
> 
> Your comments here are such complete nonsense it's hard to even tell 
> what mistake you're making and correct it...

Blabla, playing around won't make your point valid, I say your point is
void, because code is assumed to not contain anything useless, so
nothing useless will _ever_ be added, so don't even consider it nor talk
about it. Is it so hard to understand for you ?

Debating with you is really tiring since you make so many efforts to
show that you do not understand what people say while you obviously do.

-- 
Baptiste COUDURIER                              GnuPG Key Id: 0x5C1ABAAA
Key fingerprint                 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
checking for life_signs in -lkenny... no