[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86: Don't hardcode the height to 8 in sad8_xy2_mmx

[Martin Storsjö]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2022, Michael Niedermayer wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 10:47:34AM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022, Martin Storsjö wrote:
>>
>>> The height is hardcoded in some of the me_cmp functions, but not
>>> in all of them. But in the case of all other functions, it's hardcoded
>>> in the same place in SIMD functions as in the C reference functions,
>>> while this one function differs from the behaviour of the C code.
>>>
>>> (Before 542765ce3eccbca587d54262a512cbdb1407230d, there were a
>>> couple other sad8_*_mmx functions with similar hardcoded height.)
>>> ---
>>> libavcodec/x86/me_cmp_init.c | 3 +--
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/x86/me_cmp_init.c b/libavcodec/x86/me_cmp_init.c
>>> index 61e9396b8f..dcc2621276 100644
>>> --- a/libavcodec/x86/me_cmp_init.c
>>> +++ b/libavcodec/x86/me_cmp_init.c
>>> @@ -202,13 +202,12 @@ static inline int sum_mmx(void)
>>> static int sad8_xy2_ ## suf(MpegEncContext *v, uint8_t *blk2,           \
>>>                             uint8_t *blk1, ptrdiff_t stride, int h)     \
>>> {                                                                       \
>>> -    av_assert2(h == 8);                                                     \
>>>     __asm__ volatile (                                                  \
>>>         "pxor %%mm7, %%mm7     \n\t"                                    \
>>>         "pxor %%mm6, %%mm6     \n\t"                                    \
>>>         ::);                                                            \
>>>                                                                         \
>>> -    sad8_4_ ## suf(blk1, blk2, stride, 8);                              \
>>> +    sad8_4_ ## suf(blk1, blk2, stride, h);                              \
>>>                                                                         \
>>>     return sum_ ## suf();                                               \
>>> }                                                                       \
>>> --
>>> 2.25.1
>>
>> Ping, does this seem reasonable? Michael indicated a desire to make the
>> me_cmp functions more general and flexible than what they are today, and
>> this would be a first step to making checkasm test such cases.
>
> LGTM assuming it doesnt have any problematic perforamce impact

Thanks - I didn't notice any significant change in the checkasm bench 
numbers for it.

// Martin