Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/5] configure: Add option for enabling LC3/LC3plus wrapper

From: Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>
To: Antoine Soulier <asoulier@google.com>
Cc: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/5] configure: Add option for enabling LC3/LC3plus wrapper
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:44:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPYw7P48ss-P03wJbu2_8xqjzpKK5Don0=t85hGyT3sNWjVDnw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+wrVda3Pn0vS4Yv=x9O43PypaJADOoaqYdS=vYYPtLDnfEVoA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 6:07 PM Antoine Soulier <asoulier@google.com> wrote:

> What do you mean by sub-optimal?
> It's stacked by prime factors, and unrolled for FFT3 and FF5.
> The butterfly implementations of FFT3 and FF5, gives me slightly slower
> computation. FFT5 is done first, so it takes advantage of sin()/cos()
> values of 0 or 1.
> There are also no reordering steps (this stage is completely removed), but
> cannot run in-place.
> Benchmarks I made show that it runs slightly faster.
>

Compared with what?
Where is at least x86 SIMD for that MDCT?

>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 9:59 AM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Isn't this using sub-optimal MDCT implementation?
>>
>
_______________________________________________
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".