Nozomi wrote:
+ for (i = 0; i < order * order; i++)
I might have written
int n = order * order;
for (i=0; i < n; i++)
to avoid repeating the multiplication every time around the loop,
even though multiplication is cheap nowadays, and -O1 will optimize
it out anyway. Staying in the habit of avoiding 'expensive'
operations in loop limits might still be a good idea, since the
optimizer can't always save you.
Or is that considered ugly these days?
D3DXSHAdd() has the same code, which is where this came from, probably.
