[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] H.264/SQV3 separation: h264data.h
Wed Dec 17 00:05:12 CET 2008
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 14:29 -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 13:10 -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >> No, you threw numbers saying something you cannot prove, and you assume
> >> we should trust your words. This is stupid.
> > I told you the facts, and I told you how to verify them if you want to.
> > What's stupid is your argumentation in this thread.
> You are even contradicting yourself because you claimed that changes and
> symptoms were random, how can you guarantee that my tests would verify
> them ? This is still absurd, and your argumentation is still stupid.
I say a thrown die can end up any side up, and present a sequence of
throws which shows every number appearing. You cannot reproduce the
exact sequence of throws but you can reproduce every number appearing.
You asking for the particular code changes I used is like asking for the
particular way I threw the die to produce a certain number.
> >>>> 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.
> > Why? You couldn't find any stupider and less constructive way to argue?
> What is pure absurdity is claiming that I cannot reproduce the same
> random values that you did, since you told me what to do to experience
> the same random values ....
I told you you can't reproduce the exact same random values but you can
reproduce the same overall behavior. You can't reproduce the exact die
throws but you can reproduce every side coming up at some point. What's
so hard to understand about this?
> > You quoted some text and asked whether that was what I was trying to say
> > "here". So I answered that it was not. And I added this part: "But what
> > I've said elsewhere in the thread is basically that small benchmark
> > changes show little else than the absence of very significant changes
> > either way.".
> >> You claim that since every change produce random effects on every
> >> computer, no benchmark is worth, no proof is worth being showed.
> > You snipped the part reproduced above where I clearly say something else
> > and then wrote this false claim?
> Twisting words as you always do won't lead you somewhere this time.
> You deliberatly claimed that showing proof wouldn't makes your point valid:
> "How would giving a code example affect its validity?"
Now how is your reply related to the part you're replying to? One talks
about how benchmark results should be interpreted, the other about
reproducing test results.
And no the part you quoted last does not say anything about what showing
proof would or wouldn't do. It says that giving the particular code I
used in my test would not be proof because it would not help you
reproduce the exact _same_ random effects, unless you somehow cloned a
lot more of my system.
> >>>> 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 ?
> > That adding unused code affects performance in essentially random ways
> > means that changes to meaningful code will also cause similar "random"
> > performance changes as a side effect.
> Your point is void until you show proof that adding "useless" code cause
> slowdown _AND_ speedup. Stop claming things without backup.
I mentioned a case where adding unused code gave a 0.8% speedup. I think
it should be rather obvious that it's not always consistently
> >> 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.
> > I honestly thought that you'd understand the point above. Sorry if I did
> > not adequately consider the limits of your intelligence.
> Your lack of understanding is not an excuse for insulting people.
Do you claim your own tone was not insulting? Maybe I failed to
understand your failure to understand the issue being discussed, but I
think that's a lesser fault than yours.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel