[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix
From: |
Алексей Подтележников |
Subject: |
Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix |
Date: |
Thu, 7 Apr 2011 07:47:26 -0400 |
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> In most circumstances, I fully agree. However, the new code looks
>>> like voodoo to me
>>
>> If it was a Freetype-specific core piece to be cherished as a mural,
>> I'd side with Werner. But is it so special?
>
> If I've understood James correctly, the new code is actually compiler
> dependent but the compilers he tested all produce the same result.
To me the code looks like a welcome microoptimization/simplification.
The result should be the same regardless of compiler.
James, can you, however, provide some ftbench numbers to show
that your code is better?
- [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, James Cloos, 2011/04/04
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, Werner LEMBERG, 2011/04/05
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, James Cloos, 2011/04/05
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, Behdad Esfahbod, 2011/04/05
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, Werner LEMBERG, 2011/04/05
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix,
Алексей Подтележников <=
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, Werner LEMBERG, 2011/04/07
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, James Cloos, 2011/04/07
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, Werner LEMBERG, 2011/04/08
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, James Cloos, 2011/04/08
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, Werner LEMBERG, 2011/04/18
- Re: [ft-devel] [PATCH] Improve FT_MulFix, James Cloos, 2011/04/18