On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Luca Barbato <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25/11/14 16:09, Vittorio Giovara wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Vittorio Giovara >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Also reduce variable scope. >>> >>> CC: [email protected] >>> Bug-Id: CID 1238835 >>> --- >>> This version produces exactly the same values as before, assuming that >>> the original intent was having an integer division. Rough test program >>> http://www.privatepaste.com/9b8ea5d86a >>> >>> Vittorio >>> >>> libavcodec/mpegaudio_tablegen.h | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/libavcodec/mpegaudio_tablegen.h >>> b/libavcodec/mpegaudio_tablegen.h >>> index 8a3e51a..4d391e6 100644 >>> --- a/libavcodec/mpegaudio_tablegen.h >>> +++ b/libavcodec/mpegaudio_tablegen.h >>> @@ -42,13 +42,13 @@ static float expval_table_float[512][16]; >>> >>> static void mpegaudio_tableinit(void) >>> { >>> - int i, value, exponent; >>> + int i, exponent; >>> for (i = 1; i < TABLE_4_3_SIZE; i++) { >>> - double value = i / 4; >>> + int value = i / 4; >>> double f, fm; >>> int e, m; >>> /* cbrtf() isn't available on all systems, so we use powf(). */ >>> - f = value * powf(value, 1.0 / 3.0) * pow(2, (i & 3) * 0.25); >>> + f = powf(value, 1.0 / 3.0) * pow(2, (i & 3) * 0.25) * value; >> >> >> btw this change is required only for clang, gcc provides the same >> results without changing order of operands. >> > > Why the duplicate variable btw?
which one? the second 'value' is the loop index, I kept it because it was more descriptive than i. -- Vittorio _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
