On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:41:14AM +0000, Nedeljko Babic wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 04:08:06PM +0100, Nedeljko Babic wrote:
[...]
> >> +
> >> static av_const SoftFloat av_normalize_sf(SoftFloat a){
> >> if(a.mant){
> >> #if 1
> >> @@ -66,11 +74,12 @@ static inline av_const SoftFloat
> >> av_normalize1_sf(SoftFloat a){
> >> av_assert2(a.mant < 0x40000000 && a.mant > -0x40000000);
> >> return a;
> >> #elif 1
> >> - int t= a.mant + 0x40000000 < 0;
> >> - return (SoftFloat){a.exp+t, a.mant>>t};
> >> + int t= a.mant + 0x40000000;
> >> + t = t < 0;
> >> + return (SoftFloat){ a.mant>>t, a.exp+t};
> >> #else
> >> int t= (a.mant + 0x40000000U)>>31;
> >
> >> - return (SoftFloat){a.exp+t, a.mant>>t};
> >> + return (SoftFloat){a.mant>>t, a.exp+t};
> >
> >fliping the order of the argumets, as its cosmetic should be in a
> >seperate patch from all functional changes
> >this keeps the changes easier to read now for review as well as in
> >the future
>
> Ok. It will be moved to the new patch.
> Should I resend entire patch set once all the changes are made, or should I
> just
> split this patch in the two new patches and send them in answer to this
> review?its probably quicker if you resubmit the libavutil / softfloat patches and try to get them through review independant of the aac changes [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- Albert Einstein
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
