Hi, Daniel Egger <egger@xxxxxxx> writes: > Of course I meant channels instead pixels... However for simple > mainpulations the shifting and masking is much more work than simply > operating on one channel at once, especially since those simple > operations have a much higher chance to be scheduled into different > units in the CPU (superscalar processing is quite common) than code > where you have a lot of depencies. So even if this approach would result > in less instructions it probably might run slower. I think I mentioned that this sort of stuff needs careful benchmarking. The benchmarks we did for DirectFB (mostly on PPC and i686) showed a noticeable speedup. But of course before one can even think about applying such optimizations to The GIMP one has to profile typical usage patterns and identify the real bottlenecks. Salut, Sven
