On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:27:20 -0400 Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote:
> 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. Not going to play this superficially-review-mass-patches-with-little-to- none-benefit-just-so-a-single-developer-doesn't-get-annoyed-and-then-deal- with-regression-fallout game. You're giving the ML more patches to review than it can deal with it, so my reaction is to flat out reject such patch-spam for things which seem to have little benefit and are not 100% trivial. (This reminds me of mass cosmetics from Libav...) _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
