Maxim Podbereznyy <lisarden@gmail.com> writes:
Well, using the mplayer seems reasonable. The only problem that it does not
work at default rootfs supplied with i.mx51 Dev-kit and I really have no
idea how to compile for i.mx51. There is no OE for i.mx51 and this is pity.
FFmpeg might easier to compile than mplayer. It certainly has fewer
dependencies (none).
FFmpeg looks good. The only thing seems not so good is “numerous ARM optimizations”. But I hope to pass these optimizations by using the same compiler for all ARM cores.
2010/9/15 Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com>
Maxim Podbereznyy wrote:
FFmpeg looks good. The only thing seems not so good is "numerous ARM
optimizations". But I hope to pass these optimizations by using the same
compiler for all ARM cores.
why are "numerous ARM optimizations" a problem for a benchmark?
Maxim Podbereznyy <lisarden@gmail.com> writes:
FFmpeg looks good. The only thing seems not so good is "numerous ARM
optimizations". But I hope to pass these optimizations by using the same
compiler for all ARM cores.
What about the optimisations is not good? If you don't like them you
can disable them by passing --disable-asm to configure. BTW, mplayer
uses ffmpeg for video decoding, so whatever problems you see with with
ffmpeg will affect mplayer too.
I don’t know what kinds of optimization is done for ARM but as you all mentioned in the previous posts on this topic that any optimizied library is not good.
so, my worries are useless? 
2010/9/15 Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com>
Maxim Podbereznyy <lisarden@gmail.com> writes:
I don't know what kinds of optimization is done for ARM but as you all
mentioned in the previous posts on this topic that any optimizied library is
not good.
We said you have a problem if the libraries are _not_ optimised.