On May 03 20:03:43, h...@stare.cz wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 26 20:46:51, b...@comstyle.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > Implement SSE2 lrint() and lrintf() on amd64.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think this is worth the added complexity:
> > > > > > > seven more patches to have a different
> > > > > > On Apr 26 20:46:51, b...@comstyle.com wrote:
> > > > > > > Implement SSE2 lrint() and lrintf() on amd64.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think this is worth the added complexity:
> > > > > > seven more patches to have a different lrint()?
> > > > > > Does it make the resampling
On May 02 14:29:26, h...@stare.cz wrote:
> On May 02 13:04:54, s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
> > On 2024/05/01 21:04, Jan Stary wrote:
> > > On May 01 11:00:12, s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
> > > > On 2024/05/01 11:21, Jan Stary wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Apr 26 20:46:51,
On Thu, 02 May 2024 14:29:26 +0200,
Jan Stary wrote:
>
> Sorry, I don't understand at all how this concerns
> the OpenBSD port of libsamplerate: the Benchmark does not
> mention an OS or an architecture, so what is this being run on?
>
Because it seems like a magic. Special in the case of
On May 02 13:04:54, s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
> On 2024/05/01 21:04, Jan Stary wrote:
> > On May 01 11:00:12, s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
> > > On 2024/05/01 11:21, Jan Stary wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 26 20:46:51, b...@comstyle.com wrote:
> > > > > Implement SSE2 lrint() and
On 2024/05/01 21:04, Jan Stary wrote:
> On May 01 11:00:12, s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
> > On 2024/05/01 11:21, Jan Stary wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Apr 26 20:46:51, b...@comstyle.com wrote:
> > > > Implement SSE2 lrint() and lrintf() on amd64.
> > >
> > > I don't think this is worth the
> > > On Apr 26 20:46:51, b...@comstyle.com wrote:
> > > > Implement SSE2 lrint() and lrintf() on amd64.
> > > Does it make the resampling noticably better/faster?
> >
> > Playing with the benchmark mentioned in
> > https://github.com/libsndfile/libsamplerate/issues/187
> > suggests that it's
On May 01 11:00:12, s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
> On 2024/05/01 11:21, Jan Stary wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Apr 26 20:46:51, b...@comstyle.com wrote:
> > > Implement SSE2 lrint() and lrintf() on amd64.
> >
> > I don't think this is worth the added complexity:
> > seven more patches to have a
On 2024/05/01 11:21, Jan Stary wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Apr 26 20:46:51, b...@comstyle.com wrote:
> > Implement SSE2 lrint() and lrintf() on amd64.
>
> I don't think this is worth the added complexity:
> seven more patches to have a different lrint()?
> Does it make the resampling noticably
Hi,
On Apr 26 20:46:51, b...@comstyle.com wrote:
> Implement SSE2 lrint() and lrintf() on amd64.
I don't think this is worth the added complexity:
seven more patches to have a different lrint()?
Does it make the resampling noticably better/faster?
Also, the patch changes the CONFIGURE_STYLE
Implement SSE2 lrint() and lrintf() on amd64.
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/audio/libsamplerate/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.27
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.27 Makefile
--- Makefile5 Sep 2023 16:13:38 - 1.27
+++
On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 12:36:54AM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 04:08:02PM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 10:51:25PM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> > > Here is an update to libsamplerate 0.2.1.
> > >
> > > Version 0.2.1 (2021-01-23)
> > > * Fix incorrect
On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 04:08:02PM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 10:51:25PM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> > Here is an update to libsamplerate 0.2.1.
> >
> > Version 0.2.1 (2021-01-23)
> > * Fix incorrect passing of -version-info to libtool, causing a
> > regression on
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 10:51:25PM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> Here is an update to libsamplerate 0.2.1.
>
> Version 0.2.1 (2021-01-23)
> * Fix incorrect passing of -version-info to libtool, causing a
> regression on versioned file name of the shared library (#140).
> * Fix time resolution
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 10:51:24PM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> Here is an update to libsamplerate 0.2.1.
>
> Version 0.2.1 (2021-01-23)
> * Fix incorrect passing of -version-info to libtool, causing a
> regression on versioned file name of the shared library (#140).
> * Fix time resolution
Here is an update to libsamplerate 0.2.1.
Version 0.2.1 (2021-01-23)
* Fix incorrect passing of -version-info to libtool, causing a
regression on versioned file name of the shared library (#140).
* Fix time resolution on GNU/Hurd for throughput_test
* Update AUTHORS and release manager
On Nov 07 02:08:38, b...@comstyle.com wrote:
On 04/10/13 12:52 AM, Brad Smith wrote:
Here is an update to libsamplerate 0.1.8.
OK?
ping.
This diff does not apply to current audio/libsamplerate for me ...
Index: Makefile
On 04/10/13 12:52 AM, Brad Smith wrote:
Here is an update to libsamplerate 0.1.8.
OK?
ping.
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/ports/audio/libsamplerate/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.18
diff -u -p -r1.18 Makefile
---
Here is an update to libsamplerate 0.1.8.
OK?
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/ports/audio/libsamplerate/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.18
diff -u -p -r1.18 Makefile
--- Makefile21 Mar 2013 08:45:12 - 1.18
+++
Hi ports@
This diff updates libsamplerate to version 0.1.3
more info here:
http://www.mega-nerd.com/erikd/Blog/CodeHacking/SecretRabbitCode/progress.html
It passes regress (amd64) and all dependent ports build fine fine with
it:
audio/jack audio/akode audio/mpd audio/aqualung audio/audacity
20 matches
Mail list logo
