On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 05:19:42PM +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> Division with round up is the correct way to compute this even if the
> only case where division with round down gives incorrect result is
> probably 15 bpp. This case was explicitely patched up in one of these
> functions but was un
On 2012-08-22 18:44, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-08-22 18:29, Stefan Weil wrote:
>> Am 22.08.2012 17:32, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
>>> On 2012-08-22 17:19, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
Division with round up is the correct way to compute this even if the
only case where division with round down gives
On 2012-08-22 18:29, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Am 22.08.2012 17:32, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
>> On 2012-08-22 17:19, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
>>> Division with round up is the correct way to compute this even if the
>>> only case where division with round down gives incorrect result is
>>> probably 15 bpp. This
Am 22.08.2012 17:32, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
On 2012-08-22 17:19, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
Division with round up is the correct way to compute this even if the
only case where division with round down gives incorrect result is
probably 15 bpp. This case was explicitely patched up in one of these
funct
On 2012-08-22 17:19, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> Division with round up is the correct way to compute this even if the
> only case where division with round down gives incorrect result is
> probably 15 bpp. This case was explicitely patched up in one of these
> functions but was unhandled in the other.
Division with round up is the correct way to compute this even if the
only case where division with round down gives incorrect result is
probably 15 bpp. This case was explicitely patched up in one of these
functions but was unhandled in the other. (I'm not sure about setting
16 bpp for the 15bpp
