[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] fix lpc_mmx.c compilation with --enable-pic
Sat Jan 2 18:39:14 CET 2010
On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 11:30:16PM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:18:01PM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 01:06:32PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:36:01AM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > unfortunately gcc is as usual quite stupid so a constraint like
> > > > "=m"(autoc[j]), "=m"(autoc[j+1]), "=m"(autoc[j+2]) takes up a lot of
> > > > registers (strangely this also causes all other asm in the same function
> > > > to fail with "out of registers", including any asm from inlined
> > > > functions).
> > > > Attached is a possible solution I found which seems reasonable to me.
> > > > Comments?
> > >
> > > > lpc_mmx.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
> > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > 1eacb77301b919079355642b630288a25d1eebce pic_lpc.diff
> > >
> > > if it works and is not slower, ok
> > Anyone volunteering to benchmark? I am still limited to my Atom-based computer
> > and I don't think benchmarks are that useful on it (and mostly I am just lazy).
> Ok, here are the numbers. I consider them good enough, with variance
> too high to make it possible to see any difference, however as always I
> am no good at benchmarking.
> Ok to apply considering these numbers?
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not
approve, and what they approve I do not know. -- Epicurus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel