On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Matt Oliver <protogo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 14 October 2015 at 09:46, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> >>> wrote: >>> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:02 AM, Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me> wrote: >>> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:25:03AM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: >>> >> [...] >>> >>> What about fmax/FFMAX? >>> >> >>> >> Feel free to try that out (it looks OT regarding the patch), but fmax() >>> >> looks glibc specific >>> >>> Seems they are actually ISO: >>> http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/numeric/math/fmax >>> >>> Can someone check availability on all of our platforms of interest >>> (e.g Microsoft)? >>> >> >> fmax and fmin are only available on msvc using 2013 or newer. Currently the >> only msvc version without fmax/fmin that FFmpeg supports is 2012 which uses >> the C99 to C89 converter. > > And does that converter handle fmin, fmax, fmaxf, etc? > Does it need patches? > Bottom line: are they safe to use at the moment? >
No, they are not. One thing I don't understand - why are we bothering with something that at best comes out as "same speed" from tests performed? (low number of runs are irrelevant as they are not statistically significant). _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
