2012/2/29 Mashiat Sarker Shakkhar <[email protected]>: >>> + 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. Christophe _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
