[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] configure+libm.h: add fmin/fmax/fminf/fmaxf emulation

[Ganesh Ajjanagadde]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Muhammad Faiz <mfcc64 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Muhammad Faiz <mfcc64 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanag at mit.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Michael Niedermayer
>>>> <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 06:53:34PM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
>>>>>> > From: Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > This should fix the build failure of avf_showcqt.c
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > An alternative solution would be to add a check for fmin/fmax to fate-source and
>>>>>> > then to replace them by FFMIN/FFMAX, i can do that if preferred?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Untested due to lack of a affected platform
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I recall some interest on my end to get fmin, fmax etc for different
>>>>>> reasons, and it was remarked that commit
>>>>>> 4436a8f44dedc83767b3d9da9beb85d1fae2ca30 may be relevant. The summary
>>>>>> seems to be that getting it to work on all platforms is not so simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> :/
>>>>> ill replace the problematic ones by FFMIN/MAX for now so the build
>>>>> failure on the affected msvc platforms is fixed
>>>>> tieing a build fix to this complexity would be unwise
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am definitely interested in getting it to work in order to replace
>>>>>> FFMAX/FFMIN for floating point in especially libavfilter. This will
>>>>>> allow better nan signalling at a slight performance cost.
>>>>>
>>>>> would that performance cost affect all systems or just ones not
>>>>> having fmin/fmax ?
>>>>> i think affecting all systems would be bad
>>>>
>>>> A correct fmin and fmax will be slower than FFMIN/FFMAX, simply
>>>> because they do NaN handling. How much slower, I have not tested. Also
>>>> note that flags may be passed to the compiler to ignore NaN's,
>>>> something which can possibly be done locally if desired. However, I
>>>> view FFMAX/FFMIN as the cleaner solution if NaN signalling/propagation
>>>> is not an issue, so I may not pursue this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Common problem with FFMIN/FFMAX (and other macros that evaluates
>>> arguments more than once):
>>> FFMAX(a, myfunc(b))
>>> will call myfunc twice (OK compiler may optimize it and call myfunc once)
>>> and often people don't care about it.
>>
>> That goes without saying, but sometimes compiler can't optimize due to
>> sequence point stuff. This is why the macro should be used cautiously.
>> However, FFmpeg devs are generally cautious about these things so I no
>> longer press this that hard. The real technical benefit (if any) is
>> the different NaN handling as noted above.
>
> Here some examples:
> libavfilter/g729postfilter.c: 544
>     *voicing = FFMAX(*voicing, long_term_filter(adsp, pitch_delay_int,
>                                                 residual,
> residual_filt_buf + 10,
>                                                 subframe_size));
>
> others that call sqrt, strlen, etc (altough possibly compiler can optimize it)
>
> commit 94494dab910133106e80ece0f79935d78138e415
> +        volume = FFABS(av_expr_eval(volume_expr, expr_vars_val, NULL));
> I posted the patch, and I didn't noticed or warned that it is wrong.

So on the note of FFABS - I think all floating point usages at least
have been converted to proper C functions.

Yes, things like this can be missed, and I personally use the libc
variants unless there is no alternative.
However, it was quite some work for me to convince others to use them,
and I am trying to stay on the sidelines this time by not posting a
patch for it.

>
> Thank's
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel