On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 7:04 AM, Scott D Phillips <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 09:20:49PM -0700, Xiang, Haihao wrote: >> >> Hi Scott, >> >> Does your patches change the pass criteria? I don't see any failure >> after applying your patches, but Common/JPEGEncodeInputTest.Full/95 >> should be failed if no change to pass criteria. > > It should not alter the pass-criteria for any test. Looking closer at the > change, because the comparison is done with int8_t, it is possible that a > surface of all 0 will compare as 'close enough' to a surface of all 255. Let > me see if I > can fix that.
Yes, I was seeing the same thing as Haihao, and was expecting the failure. Sean > >> >> Thanks >> Haihao >> >> >> > For me these two patches take the Big encode test from 44sec to >> > ~7sec. >> > >> > Scott D Phillips (2): >> > test: use valarray for raw image comparison >> > test: read jpeg test data from /dev/urandom >> > >> > test/i965_jpeg_encode_test.cpp | 29 +++++++++++++---------------- >> > test/i965_jpeg_test_data.cpp | 6 +++--- >> > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) >> > > _______________________________________________ > Libva mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libva -- Sean V. Kelley <[email protected]> Open Source Technology Center / SSG Intel Corp. _______________________________________________ Libva mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libva
