Christophe Gisquet <christophe.gisq...@gmail.com> writes: > 2012/2/29 Mashiat Sarker Shakkhar <shahriman_...@yahoo.com>: >>>> + if (s->bV3RTM) >>>> + for (icoef = 0; icoef < s->cdlms[ich][ilms].order; icoef++) >>>> + s->cdlms[ich][ilms].lms_updates[icoef + recent] /= 2; >>>> + else >>>> + for (icoef = 0; icoef < s->cdlms[ich][ilms].order; icoef++) >>>> + s->cdlms[ich][ilms].lms_updates[icoef] /= 2; >>> >>> shift instead? >> >> Don't think so. IIRC, there is an issue regarding zero-truncation >> involved here. Please ask Mans to comment. I'm not an authority here. > > Those are signed values, so shift is probably not correct here, while > division is. But for such a divisor, most compilers will generate the > proper sequence of adds and shifts to emulate it.
Yes, shift and division are different for negative numbers. For constant divisors, gcc does the right though. -- Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
