|
|
|
@ -30,15 +30,15 @@ NOTE: If you still don't understand some function, ask at our mailing list!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When is an optimization justified? |
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Normally, clean & simple optimizations on widely used codecs can achieve |
|
|
|
|
an overall speedup of 0.1%. These speedups accumulate and can make a big |
|
|
|
|
difference after awhile. Also, if none of the following factors get |
|
|
|
|
worse due to an optimization -- speed, binary code size, source size, |
|
|
|
|
source readability -- and at least one factor improves, then an |
|
|
|
|
optimization is always a good idea even if the overall gain is less than |
|
|
|
|
0.1%. For obscure codecs that are not often used, the goal is more |
|
|
|
|
toward keeping the code clean, small, and readable than to make it 1% |
|
|
|
|
faster. |
|
|
|
|
Normally, clean and simple optimizations for widely used codecs are |
|
|
|
|
justified even if they only achieve an overall speedup of 0.1%. These |
|
|
|
|
speedups accumulate and can make a big difference after awhile. Also, if |
|
|
|
|
none of the following factors get worse due to an optimization -- speed, |
|
|
|
|
binary code size, source size, source readability -- and at least one |
|
|
|
|
factor improves, then an optimization is always a good idea even if the |
|
|
|
|
overall gain is less than 0.1%. For obscure codecs that are not often |
|
|
|
|
used, the goal is more toward keeping the code clean, small, and |
|
|
|
|
readable instead of making it 1% faster. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WTF is that function good for ....: |
|
|
|
|