James Almer <jamrial <at> gmail.com> writes: > On 01/10/14 5:22 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > James Almer <jamrial <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > >> This makes the addition of arch optimized > >> functions easier. > > > > Do you think that the functions in question are > > bitexact wrt the specification?
> The 53 is afaik. The 97 float isn't, which is why > there's a 97 int version. > > How is this relevant anyway? I thought that it is not a good idea to write simd optimizations for C functions that are known to be incorrect because tests are difficult. Thank you, Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
