On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:43 AM, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:19:59 -0400 > Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is more concise and conveys the intent better. >> Furthermore, it is likely more precise as well due to lack of floating >> point division. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> >> --- > > These patches are all pretty similar. And likely tedious to check for > correctness. So low gain, while some potential for regressions.
In the time it took you to write that comment, you could have easily reviewed a couple. log10 is already being used in the codebase, why not make it consistent and also make it more precise? There is a good reason why libc has a log10 function. Maybe you don't care about such things, but I do: it is (roughly) analogous to using double instead of float for filters/resampling etc - noise floor should not be increased unless there is a clear benefit. Here there is none from using log as opposed to log10. > > NACK from me. > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
