Hi, On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 10:47:23AM -0800, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote: > >> exp10, recently introduced, is superior for the purpose. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> libavfilter/f_ebur128.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/libavfilter/f_ebur128.c b/libavfilter/f_ebur128.c > >> index b9577c5..6749bcd 100644 > >> --- a/libavfilter/f_ebur128.c > >> +++ b/libavfilter/f_ebur128.c > >> @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static int config_audio_output(AVFilterLink > *outlink) > >> return 0; > >> } > >> > >> -#define ENERGY(loudness) (pow(10, ((loudness) + 0.691) / 10.)) > >> +#define ENERGY(loudness) (exp10(((loudness) + 0.691) / 10.)) > >> #define LOUDNESS(energy) (-0.691 + 10 * log10(energy)) > >> #define DBFS(energy) (20 * log10(energy)) > > > > OK if FATE is happy > > FATE is happy on GNU/Linux, where exp10 is correctly rounded. Can't > speak for the fallback; it was a risk that I explained in detail. Now > that I see its use, I am myself leaning towards a pow(10,x) fallback > instead of the exp2 based one. That's because your refactoring origin is biased. If you had started from libavcodec/acelp_pitch_delay.c:135 (the only place I could find where we use exp2 but where we should use exp10), you'd say the opposite. (I think the current fallback is fine.) Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
