[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] use ff_avc_find_startcode in ff_find_start_code

[Reimar Döffinger]

Hello,
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:22:09AM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 03:57:07AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:07:38PM +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > > First I wonder if that ff_find_start_code function is
> > > not quite buggy anyway, or is it intentional that it searches for 
> > > 00 00 01 00 in the part involving the state but for 00 00 01 ?? in the
> > > later code? If so, could somebody document the code?.
> > > Anyway, this is a quite ugly patch that makes the function use
> > > ff_avc_find_startcode (since that is in lavf, it can't be used as is of
> > > course).
> > > It probably also breaks the original use of ff_avc_find_startcode,
> > > though I found the current behaviour a bit strange as well, and this
> > > function is undocumented, too.
> > > This causes at least a 6% speedup when decoding
> > > http://samples.mplayerhq.hu/GXF/THX_Science_FLT_1920.gxf (I only tested
> > > with MPlayer though).
> > 
> > current code:
> > 7054 dezicycles in findsc, 262131 runs, 13 skips
> > 7082 dezicycles in findsc, 262134 runs, 10 skips
> > 
> > your code:
> > 11371 dezicycles in findsc, 262119 runs, 25 skips
> > 11624 dezicycles in findsc, 262115 runs, 29 skips
> > 
> > gcc: 4.3.0 20080127 (experimental)
> > 800mhz duron
> > ffmpeg -v 9 -i matrixbench_mpeg2.mpg -vcodec copy -an -y test.avi
> 
> Please use MPlayer, for some reason it gives these numbers:
> current code:
> 1039 dezicycles in test, 4096 runs, 0 skips
> 1031 dezicycles in test, 8192 runs, 0 skips
> 1022 dezicycles in test, 16384 runs, 0 skips
> 
> my code:
> 623 dezicycles in test, 4096 runs, 0 skips
> 624 dezicycles in test, 8192 runs, 0 skips
> 631 dezicycles in test, 16384 runs, 0 skips

I think I found the reason for the discrepancies, the current code seems
about 25% faster with the parser, whereas the decoder is about the same
amount slower...
Can someone help me find out why, or should we just use two different
implementations?

Greetings,
Reimar D?ffinger