[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] update doc/optimization.txt
Tue Sep 21 15:55:28 CEST 2010
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 09:48:43AM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:37:40AM -0700, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote:
> >> > interresting strawman argument
> >> > noone was talking about cases that cannot easily be done in inline asm
> >> > not that calling from inline would be impossible or anything but i surely
> >> > agree that for these 0.1% of asm yasm is likely the better choice
> >> You mean this 99%. ?It's only 0.1% because you don't think about
> >> optimizations that can't be done under your current system.
> > please elaborate on what other optimizations are possible in yasm that cannot
> > be done in inline asm.
> The biggest one is that I can create a "double-width" version in SSE*
> (usually SSE2) and a "single-width" version in MMX* (usually MMX2) of
> a function (e.g. subpel MC, weighted prediction, intra prediction, or
> something) in a single go. I don't need to write the function twice.
> Optimizing one will optimize both. This is incredibly handy if you're
> writing new asm code.
thats just a source difference through macro/preprocessor use not a
optimization that yasm can do that inline cannot.
And actually its unlikely that this is optimal. SSE2 and later cpus are
unlikely to have the same optimal instruction sequence that pre SSE2 cpus had.
so 2 functions do make sense.
and it wouldnt be impossible to merge them with the C preprocessor but thats
not something i would consider a good idea, just theoretical possible
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is
to question oneself and others. -- Socrates
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel