On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 11:34:37PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote: > That benchmark was done on x86. But let's face it, it's the > architecture that counts. Mind that I am writing this from a PPC, which > is my main machine..
I disagree, amd64 would be the architecture which counts and amd64 has enough registers to cope with PIC code, but I will not fall in the game of what architecture counts, even if for me, it would rather be powerpc anyway. > > Then, I can agree with you that static linking has better performance. > > Therefore, what I can recommand is to build mplayer statically, but > > with a Debian up-to-date ffmpeg package. I am CCing Samuel Hocevar > > to get his opinion on the matter... > > I know that distro people dislike static linking, but multimedia players > are speed-critical applications. Not everybody has a multi-GHz machine > and even on those high definition content takes them to the limit... This is a false argument. Come one please, do not attempt to tell me that you can decently play a H.264-encoded video on a non-GHz machine even with SIMD instruction-set, I will not believe you. > > > Plus I expect random bugs to creep up. As mentioned above FFmpeg is > > > highly volatile and fast-moving. Backwards-compatibility is not a > > > priority. > > > > That will *not* happen with an up-to-date ffmpeg package which other > > packages might benefit from. > > What I'm afraid of is that such an updated package might not sit well > with xine and the other users of FFmpeg. That is why I would like the opinion of Sam on the matter. He told me on IRC that he needed some time to investigate the matter... Cheers, -- .''`. Aurélien GÉRÔME : :' : `. `'` Free Software Developer `- Unix Sys & Net Admin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
