On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
ha ha, my bias comes from my pickiness about numerical issues. > > (I think the current fallback is fine.) Ok. > > Ronald > _______________________________________________ > 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
