On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 14:59 +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote: > 'Twas brillig, and Arun Raghavan at 18/10/12 14:28 did gyre and gimble: > > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 13:33 +0200, Peter Meerwald wrote: > >> > >>> The old code seems to be written for big-endian code. > >> > >>> NB: This one's really strange since this effectively means that our soft > >>> volumes on ARMv6 have been mostly broken (since almost everybody uses > >>> litte-endian). Review would be appreciated! > >> > >> benchmark results on Cortex-A8 were horrible > >> (http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/2012-February/012864.html): > >> > >> runtime on beagle-xm, 800 MHz: > >> > >> checking NEON volume_float32ne > >> NEON: 10223 usec. > >> ref: 46480 usec. > >> checking NEON volume_s16ne > >> NEON: 8484 usec. > >> ARM: 339272 usec. > >> ref: 20203 usec. > > > > So it /was/ working fine on armel at the time, then? > > Would the benchmark come from automated tests or actually listening to > things? Is it possible the benchmarks ran, but didn't necessarily > produce any kind of valid results? The standard test code in all the svolume files does one run to check values against the reference implementation, and another to compare performance. I gather Peter might've added some code to run a 3rd implementation in the test which doesn't verify the computed values. -- Arun
