On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok to squash them together. Do you want me to do that? > Yes. There will definitely v7 of the patchset (which most likely will be the version getting merged into the tree), so do it in that version.
Oded > 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