Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "total_error_2".
Did you mean:
total_error_3
2004 Sep 10
2
An assembly optimization and fix
...rror_0
- ; dword [esp + 4] == last_error_1
- ; dword [esp + 8] == last_error_2
- ; dword [esp + 12] == last_error_3
- ; eax == error
; ebx == &data[i]
; ecx == loop counter (i)
- ; edx == temp
- ; edi == save
; ebp == order
; mm0 == total_error_1:total_error_0
- ; mm1 == total_error_3:total_error_2
- ; mm2 == 0:total_error_4
- ; mm3/4 == 0:unpackarea
- ; mm5 == abs(error_1):abs(error_0)
- ; mm5 == abs(error_3):abs(error_2)
+ ; mm1 == total_error_2:total_error_3
+ ; mm2 == :total_error_4
+ ; mm3 == last_error_1:last_error_0
+ ; mm4 == last_error_2:last_error_3
- pxor mm0, mm0 ; total_error...
2012 Apr 05
2
[PATCH 2/2] V2: Use a single definition of MIN and MAX in sources
...(x) : (y))
-
#ifdef local_abs
#undef local_abs
#endif
@@ -242,11 +238,11 @@ unsigned FLAC__fixed_compute_best_predictor(const FLAC__int32 data[], unsigned d
error -= last_error_3; total_error_4 += local_abs(error); last_error_3 = save;
}
- if(total_error_0 < min(min(min(total_error_1, total_error_2), total_error_3), total_error_4))
+ if(total_error_0 < flac_min(flac_min(flac_min(total_error_1, total_error_2), total_error_3), total_error_4))
order = 0;
- else if(total_error_1 < min(min(total_error_2, total_error_3), total_error_4))
+ else if(total_error_1 < flac_min(flac_min(total_...
2004 Sep 10
2
Re: 0.9 problems
...(real)((data_len > 0) ? log(M_LN2 * (real)total_error_0 / (real) data_len) / M_LN2 : 0.0);
- residual_bits_per_sample[1] = (real)((data_len > 0) ? log(M_LN2 * (real)total_error_1 / (real) data_len) / M_LN2 : 0.0);
- residual_bits_per_sample[2] = (real)((data_len > 0) ? log(M_LN2 * (real)total_error_2 / (real) data_len) / M_LN2 : 0.0);
- residual_bits_per_sample[3] = (real)((data_len > 0) ? log(M_LN2 * (real)total_error_3 / (real) data_len) / M_LN2 : 0.0);
- residual_bits_per_sample[4] = (real)((data_len > 0) ? log(M_LN2 * (real)total_error_4 / (real) data_len) / M_LN2 : 0.0);
+ residua...
2004 Sep 10
2
Re: 0.9 problems
Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:
> 0.9. As I said, I was using an 8-bit sample,
Ah, that didn't quite register with me. I'm using a CD-style
44.1kHz/stereo/16-bit test file.
> to avoid dealing with endian issues in the file format. I don't
> know whether any of those exist or not.
I don't think so. 0.9 works fine on i386 (little) and sparc (big),
and