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. |
23rd August 2009, 13:23 | #161 | Link |
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 |
23rd August 2009, 19:28 | #162 | Link |
AviSynth plugger
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. |
29th March 2011, 03:49 | #163 | Link |
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 |
7th April 2011, 02:16 | #164 | Link |
Didée Fan
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. |
13th November 2011, 03:53 | #166 | Link |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 5,034
|
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).
|
13th November 2011, 05:40 | #167 | Link |
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. |
18th November 2011, 02:19 | #168 | Link | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 5,034
|
Quote:
Script: Code:
LoadPlugin("DGDecodeNV.dll") DGSource("test.dgi") //720p testclip Sharpen(0.2, MMX = true) Intel 10.1 compiler: 170 fps Script: Code:
LoadPlugin("DGDecodeNV.dll") DGSource("test.dgi") //720p testclip Sharpen(0.2, MMX = false) Intel 10.1 compiler: 165 fps (!) |
|
18th November 2011, 04:35 | #169 | Link |
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 |
18th November 2011, 11:44 | #170 | Link | ||
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 5,034
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's hard to break a habit. |
||
18th November 2011, 21:10 | #171 | Link |
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?)
|
18th November 2011, 21:41 | #172 | Link |
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.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|