Commit #11130 El Tuesday 29 January 2008 15:43:33 Xavier Amatriain va escriure: > The only reasons I could think of were "historical", "I like even more > than odd > numbers" or sentimental such as "I fell in love while coding on the > fftw2" :-) > > Now seriously, I think the only reason we decided to keep the fftw2 was > that at that > point the fftw3 was not completely supported in all distros but I think > that is a > thing of the past. > > David García Garzón wrote: > > No answer, so, bye, bye fftw > > > > El Tuesday 29 January 2008 03:39:33 David García Garzón va escriure: > >> Configuration checks for fftw2 are more than 250 lines of SCons code in > >> (vs. 50 for the fftw3) do we want to keep such a monster? > >> > >> fftw3 is superior to fftw2 in precision and performance, it is easier to > >> configure not having 4 libs with their own prefixes for different > >> precissions, for example. They both have the same license (not like > >> ooura) and all platforms seems to support well fftw3. > >> > >> Any reason to keep compatibility with the old version? Do we chop its > >> head? > >> > >> David. > >> > >> PD: In fact this duplication is my fault: i was applying the > >> Duplicate-Fill-Migrate-Clean pattern for refactorings to upgrade the > >> library but i missed the 'Clean' waiting for multiplatform to work. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Clam-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://llistes.projectes.lafarga.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clam-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Clam-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://llistes.projectes.lafarga.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clam-devel
_______________________________________________ Clam-devel mailing list [email protected] https://llistes.projectes.lafarga.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clam-devel
