On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 8:06 PM, <spit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com>
>
> With the cubic fix this is plenty accurate enough, far in excess of the pixman
> fixed-point error limit. Likely even 16 samples is too many.
> ---
> pixman/pixman-filter.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/pixman/pixman-filter.c b/pixman/pixman-filter.c
> index 7c1da0d..4aafa51 100644
> --- a/pixman/pixman-filter.c
> +++ b/pixman/pixman-filter.c
> @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ integral (pixman_kernel_t reconstruct, double x1,
> else
> {
> /* Integration via Simpson's rule */
> -#define N_SEGMENTS 128
> +#define N_SEGMENTS 16
> #define SAMPLE(a1, a2) \
> (filters[reconstruct].func ((a1)) * filters[sample].func ((a2) /
> scale))
>
> --
> 1.9.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pixman mailing list
> Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
I think it is better to just squash this patch into the previous one,
as it closely related and actually makes more sense to put them
together so we can see the run time hasn't increased but actually
decreased.
Oded
_______________________________________________
Pixman mailing list
Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
