Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Capturing and Editing Video > Avisynth Development

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 23rd August 2009, 13:23   #161  |  Link
bigboss97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 31
VC 2005 Express + Platfom SDK 2003 SP1

I followed the intruction in wiki and googled through all my problems. Now I'm stuck in:
TCPDeliver
LINK : fatal error LNK1104: cannot open file 'nafxcwd.lib'

I can only find the file under 64bit directory of my SDK. Is this something from MFC?
I read that MFC is not in the SDK. I can compile avisynth 2.57 with 2005 Express?


Here is another problem in the project:
avisynth
Project : error PRJ0019: A tool returned an error code from "Assembling c:\work\CPP\avisynth_257\src\convert\convert_a.asm..."


Thanks
Phuoc
bigboss97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2009, 19:28   #162  |  Link
Fizick
AviSynth plugger
 
Fizick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 2,183
for second, you need in Masm (download masm8 from microsoft).
__________________
My Avisynth plugins are now at http://avisynth.org.ru and mirror at http://avisynth.nl/users/fizick
I usually do not provide a technical support in private messages.
Fizick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th March 2011, 03:49   #163  |  Link
xxthink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 25
Can't build DirectShowSource project

I download the latest avisynth2.6 from cvs. When I build it by vs 2005 express, the DirectShowSource project can't be built.
This is the error message.
http://pastebin.com/J5PZuBps

Would someone like to help me?

Thanks in advance.
__________________
Welcome you
xxthink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2011, 02:16   #164  |  Link
Jeremy Duncan
Didée Fan
 
Jeremy Duncan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,079
Try my src and visual studio 2010. It compiles directshowsource. link
__________________
When I get tired during work with dvd stuff i think of River Tamm (Summer Glau's character). And the beauty that is Serenity.
Jeremy Duncan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2011, 23:43   #165  |  Link
ryrynz
Registered User
 
ryrynz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,646
Are there any performance improvements to be had if 2.58MT was compiled for a Sandy Bridge CPU?
ryrynz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2011, 03:53   #166  |  Link
Groucho2004
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 5,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryrynz View Post
Are there any performance improvements to be had if 2.58MT was compiled for a Sandy Bridge CPU?
I did some tests with different compilers (VC6, VC7.1, VC8, Intel 10.1 with IPO and PGO) some time ago but none of them nor any of their optimization options yielded any improvements worth mentioning (tested on C2D and Sandy Bridge).
Groucho2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2011, 05:40   #167  |  Link
IanB
Avisynth Developer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,167
Most of the performance critical code in Avisynth is hand coded assembler, so no compiler will make any difference to that code.

There are a small number of inbuilt filters that only have a C++ code path, these might benefit slightly from a cleverer code generator, but as they haven't warranted assembler attention they are probably not performance critical.
IanB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2011, 02:19   #168  |  Link
Groucho2004
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 5,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanB View Post
Most of the performance critical code in Avisynth is hand coded assembler, so no compiler will make any difference to that code.

There are a small number of inbuilt filters that only have a C++ code path, these might benefit slightly from a cleverer code generator, but as they haven't warranted assembler attention they are probably not performance critical.
Here's an example where the c++ code "slightly" benefits by using the Intel compiler:

Script:
Code:
LoadPlugin("DGDecodeNV.dll")
DGSource("test.dgi") //720p testclip
Sharpen(0.2, MMX = true)
VC 7.1 compiler: 168 fps
Intel 10.1 compiler: 170 fps

Script:
Code:
LoadPlugin("DGDecodeNV.dll")
DGSource("test.dgi") //720p testclip
Sharpen(0.2, MMX = false)
VC 7.1 compiler: 92 fps
Intel 10.1 compiler: 165 fps (!)
Groucho2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2011, 04:35   #169  |  Link
IanB
Avisynth Developer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,167
I am impressed the compiler was able to get within spitting distance of the MMX code, but I also suspect foul play and someone turned on the loop threading, not a fair comparison.

Given the Intel compiler is $2000+ I cannot get very interested in it seeing I already give my time for free, which I am very happy to do. I am just not prepare to spend big money on that hobby when that money does not directly make the hobby a lot more fun.



As an aside, I am getting a lot tired of people quoting reciprocal speed as a useful comparative measure. I know it is rife on this and other forums. The right measure is time.

168 fps is 5.95 milliseconds reference
170 fps is 5.88 milliseconds 1.1% faster
92 fps is 10.87 milliseconds 182% of reference
165 fps is 6.06 milliseconds 1.8% slower
IanB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2011, 11:44   #170  |  Link
Groucho2004
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 5,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanB View Post
Given the Intel compiler is $2000+ I cannot get very interested in it seeing I already give my time for free, which I am very happy to do. I am just not prepare to spend big money on that hobby when that money does not directly make the hobby a lot more fun.
You already made your point in a previous post that there are just a few un-optimized functions which are rarely used. I just tried to demonstrate what's possible with a modern compiler. Also, these kind of improvements are very rare from my experience, it's usually just a few percent. So, all the work you did with MMX and SSE optimizations is not in vain and certainly appreciated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanB View Post
As an aside, I am getting a lot tired of people quoting reciprocal speed as a useful comparative measure. I know it is rife on this and other forums. The right measure is time.
That reminds me of shops here in Spain where they displayed their prices in Euro and Pesetas years after the introduction of the Euro because people had a hard time doing the "conversion" (there are still shops which do that ).
It's hard to break a habit.
Groucho2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2011, 21:10   #171  |  Link
SEt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 374
Intel and GCC compilers quite often like to bloat the code. Combine it with hand-written assembler for actually time-critical stuff and you can get even few % slowdown due to less efficient L1C usage. (Unless you do PGO, but how many people use that?)
SEt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2011, 21:41   #172  |  Link
IanB
Avisynth Developer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,167
As I have always said, ask the compilers for an assembly listing when doing C wrapped __ASM. Make sure the wrapping C code is playing nice with your nice shiny asm. More often then desirable the compiler is a smart arse and spits out wrapping code that can be detrimental to overall performance.
IanB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:14.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.