[x265] [PATCH] removed loop, using part variable to test all partition for chroma_copy_pp

[Deepthi Nandakumar]

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 7:36 PM, <praveen at multicorewareinc.com> wrote:

> # HG changeset patch
> # User Praveen Tiwari
> # Date 1383573863 -19800
> # Node ID 20b712dce6c237f64ea3ca2a06fc4cb9370ad91f
> # Parent  690639d8d50283feeb6d208ba70d350aa2b7b196
> removed loop, using part variable to test all partition for chroma_copy_pp
>
> diff -r 690639d8d502 -r 20b712dce6c2 source/test/pixelharness.cpp
> --- a/source/test/pixelharness.cpp      Mon Nov 04 18:57:06 2013 +0530
> +++ b/source/test/pixelharness.cpp      Mon Nov 04 19:34:23 2013 +0530
> @@ -645,6 +645,14 @@
>          }
>      }
>
> What does this mean? You are calling check_block_copy_pp recursively??


> +    if (opt.chroma_copy_pp[part])
> +    {
> +        if (!check_block_copy_pp(ref.chroma_copy_pp[part],
> opt.chroma_copy_pp[part]))
> +        {
> +            printf("chroma_copy_pp[%s] failed\n", lumaPartStr[part]);
> +            return false;
> +        }
> +    }
>      return true;
>  }
>
> @@ -803,18 +811,6 @@
>              return false;
>          }
>      }
> -
>
Why should check chroma be a part of check luma?


> -    for (int i = 0; i < NUM_CHROMA_PARTITIONS; i++)
> -    {
> -      if (opt.chroma_copy_pp[i])
> -      {
> -          if (!check_block_copy_pp(ref.chroma_copy_pp[i],
> opt.chroma_copy_pp[i]))
> -          {
> -              printf("chroma_copy_pp[%s] failed\n", chromaPartStr[i]);
> -              return false;
> -          }
> -      }
> -    }
>      return true;
>  }
>
> _______________________________________________
> x265-devel mailing list
> x265-devel at videolan.org
> https://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x265-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/x265-devel/attachments/20131105/dd1ec4c5/attachment.html>