Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: compiling lame on windows (help?) (Read 7788 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

compiling lame on windows (help?)

what software do i need to compile LAME on the new box im getting?

we have some opteron dev boxes at uni i could use... im told there are a few different compilers - i always program on linux for my course, and so im a total n00b here.

seeing as all the version posted seem to be made with ICL (whatever that is) i assume thats the preferred "way".

... i had part of my classical collection shipped up from home (200+ cds) a bit of time saved thanks to a 64-bit LAME is something id appreciate 

JT

compiling lame on windows (help?)

Reply #1 –
You can use gcc (under cygwin), msvc or msvc+icl.
I am not sure if a 64bits version woudl be faster, as you will not benefit from the assembly optimisations (they are in mmx and 3dnow, and they do no exist under x86-64)

compiling lame on windows (help?)

Reply #2 –
Quote
You can use gcc (under cygwin), msvc or msvc+icl.
I am not sure if a 64bits version woudl be faster, as you will not benefit from the assembly optimisations (they are in mmx and 3dnow, and they do no exist under x86-64)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=266390"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


aaaahhh yes of course..  inline asm... *smacks forehead*

.. i think ill try it anyway.. just to see wether its

A: faster
B: slower
C: makes no difference whatsoever
D: banana plumcake

thankyou!

JT

compiling lame on windows (help?)

Reply #3 –
Quote
You can use gcc (under cygwin), msvc or msvc+icl.

Another option that I prefer is MinGW (gcc for Windows).

Quote
I am not sure if a 64bits version woudl be faster, as you will not benefit from the assembly optimisations (they are in mmx and 3dnow, and they do no exist under x86-64)

New compilers can optimize for 64 bit processors so you can be wrong here.

compiling lame on windows (help?)

Reply #4 –
AnandTech tested 64 vs 32 bits versions, compiled with gcc. The difference was about 30% faster for the 64bits version. But in both case they disabled the nasm functions.

If you want to know how much removing the asm functions will cost, you can try "lame --noasm 3dnow --noasm mmx". This will disable the mmx and 3dnow assembly functions.

compiling lame on windows (help?)

Reply #5 –
How to compile LAME with MingW?
i got some error while compiling,
can't get LAME.exe and the DLL, too bad,
I've heard that MingW compiled LAME version or other encoder is reported slower than MSVC or ICL(of course), why?
I am sucessfully compiling FAAC, but i remember FAAC encoding speed is ~3.40x only...
My CPU is P4 2.4GHz.

compiling lame on windows (help?)

Reply #6 –
Quote
I am sucessfully compiling FAAC, but i remember FAAC encoding speed is ~3.40x only...
My CPU is P4 2.4GHz.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=267649"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sounds weird...I would expect such a machine to encode at 8x at least...

compiling lame on windows (help?)

Reply #8 –
@Gabriel

Have you thought about porting the assembler to x86-64? YASM can compile for x86-64... (See what the mplayer guys did.)

compiling lame on windows (help?)

Reply #9 –
Even SSE intrinsics would work on x86-64.
If someone wants to work on the assembly for Lame, he would be welcome. I  personnally do not have time for it.

compiling lame on windows (help?)

Reply #10 –
Quote
AnandTech tested 64 vs 32 bits versions, compiled with gcc. The difference was about 30% faster for the 64bits version. But in both case they disabled the nasm functions.
If you want to know how much removing the asm functions will cost, you can try "lame --noasm 3dnow --noasm mmx". This will disable the mmx and 3dnow assembly functions.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=266488"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I did some tests when I bought my AMD64 box and it turns out that 64 bit (on Linux, gcc 3.4 -m64 -march=k8 -O2) is faster than 32 bit with assembly by an average of about ten percent. I would post the results but the box they are on is now considered "evidence" (not anything to do with me).

If you need that extra little bit, it's worth recompiling. If you encode in the background while doing other stuff it probably isn't worth the effort needed to set up a compiler.
 

compiling lame on windows (help?)

Reply #11 –
Quote
Sounds weird...I would expect such a machine to encode at 8x at least...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=267650"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sorry, is the encoding speed is around 4x, MingW compiled version(with --disable-mp4v2),
For ICL 8.1 compiled version, encoding speed is aroubd 11x.
The version downloaded form rarewares.org is ~7x

Now is event wierd, i got the frontt end only but no lame.dll,
I must be missing some libraries or components... 
I'm a n00b for programming or compiling...