From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB034436BD for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 20:12:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFCD68B65E; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:12:55 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mail8.parnet.fi (mail8.parnet.fi [77.234.108.134]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D269068B453 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:12:48 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mail9.parnet.fi (mail9.parnet.fi [77.234.108.21]) by mail8.parnet.fi with ESMTP id 25LKCht0016919-25LKCht1016919; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:12:43 +0300 Received: from foo.martin.st (host-97-187.parnet.fi [77.234.97.187]) by mail9.parnet.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FD69A142E; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:12:43 +0300 (EEST) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 23:12:42 +0300 (EEST) From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Martin_Storsj=F6?= To: "Swinney, Jonathan" In-Reply-To: <7e24309d6e59492ca73651a372ef9b2b@EX13D07UWB004.ant.amazon.com> Message-ID: <3019b79-50b9-e449-9f3b-84858c33722c@martin.st> References: <7e24309d6e59492ca73651a372ef9b2b@EX13D07UWB004.ant.amazon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FE-Policy-ID: 3:14:2:SYSTEM Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 0/2] checkasm: updated tests for sw_scale X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Cc: "J. Dekker" , "Pop, Sebastian" , "ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: On Mon, 13 Jun 2022, Swinney, Jonathan wrote: > Here is an updated patch series for the yuv2plane[X|1] implementations > and tests. The checkasm test wasn't working at all for aarch64, and the > x86_64 behavior differs from the default implementation so I had to > include some code to specialize the test for x86_64. Please let me know > if you would like me to do that at different way. Did you consider what I suggested in the last round - making two rounds of the test, one without the bitexact flag, where it's ok to be off by one (or some other epsilon) from the C reference, and one with the bitexact flag? I would presume that the currently tested x86 routines would fall into that category of non-bitexact. That way, you'd get exact tests for implementations that claim to be that, and fuzzy tests allowing minor differences, for such implementations. That would allow testing all variants without all the current horrible ifdefs, right? > I also left in some code to print out helpful debugging messages when > the tests fail. I need them for my own work and thought they might be > useful to share, but I'm happy to remove them if you would prefer it > that way. I think it's good to keep such debug printouts in the checkasm tests - the checkasm tests are meant for developers working on the assembly implementations anyway, so whenever the test fails, the printouts are valuable. // Martin _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".