On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:47:34 +0200 Martti Kühne <mysat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are insignificant differences to results with this number > (256.99999), but it's a significantly faster than glibc's ceilf (which > takes about 200%). But who'd specify a scaling factor of 1.99999 or sth.? BTW: Casting to int yields the exact same results for both CEIL and ceilf in my setup. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN <d...@frign.de>
