Ok to squash them together. Do you want me to do that? It actually does not increase the runtime, because the two loops are only adding every *other* sample. Thus the same number of samples are computed.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Oded Gabbay <oded.gab...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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