Is there a difference between the different XviD compiles?

[soujir0u]

Any difference between the XviD compiles by different people?

[LigH]

Most probably yes:

- uManiac provides an auto-build system which always creates regularly a binary from the latest CVS sources.
- Koepi (as a developer) often checks interesting enhancements, therefore does not recommend to use his builds for daily use.
- About Nic I'm not sure, he doesn't write much about his builds. AFAIR, he uses MSVC7? Others' builds may have been created with different compilers and optimisation options.

(Now I'm just expecting the question "Which one do you prefer?" - Please, no poll about this topic!)

[robUx4]

Did anyone tried ICL 4.5 (Intel Compiler) ?
I know it's the prefered compiler for Lame binaries...

[Nic]

Hi Rob,

ICL apparently really speeds up floating point, people have tried it (Myself included) & have seen no apparent speed up (which isn't surprising seeing that most of the computations are Integer (& probably already in ASM))

Cheers,
-Nic

ps
@LigH: short & sweet is always the way to go :) , I think your best bet is to follow the forums & choose who you want to go with, the difference now is minimal (with uManiac updating often now & Koepi no longer can really provide his modulated quant, things are pretty much equal) :)

[-h]

Did anyone tried ICL 4.5 (Intel Compiler) ?
I know it's the prefered compiler for Lame binaries...

ICL is good for optimizing code that's heavy with floating point operations, like LAME or (for the time being) Ogg Vorbis. XviD has very little floating point code, and the little that exists (interpolation) has already been rewritten in assembly.

There were a few tests using ICL a while ago - it ended up producing larger and slower binaries half the time, or larger binaries with identical speed otherwise.

There is still a bit of speed to be squeezed out of XviD's assembly, perhaps some specialists will notice the project some day.

-h

[robUx4]

OK

Another question, did anyone tried to compile it with GCC (mingw or cygwin) ? Not to have a fast binary, but just to check more compiling errors and warning. It usually helps to fix some potential bugs. And GCC is very good at it compared to MSVC (at least up to VS6).

[rui]

Nic, could you please post your new site(not the stormpages, the other one)?
I know that the link is somehwere in the forum, but i couldn't find it.

Thanks

[uManiac]

Nic's new url is http://nic.dnsalias.com/

uManiac

[Koepi]

http://nic.dnsalias.com/

[Nic]

On your marks...get set... :D

Yup thats my site ;)

-Nic

[rui]

Thanks everybody :)

[robUx4]

Originally posted by robUx4
OK

Another question, did anyone tried to compile it with GCC (mingw or cygwin) ? Not to have a fast binary, but just to check more compiling errors and warning. It usually helps to fix some potential bugs. And GCC is very good at it compared to MSVC (at least up to VS6).

Let's reply to myself : the makefiles are there for Linux, DJGPP, etc :)
Too bad cygwin/GCC is not supported. (a little tweak and it works)

So I guess some Linux people check often for possible problems :)