Hi,
On 2 May 2012 18:02, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> On 2 May 2012 12:57, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>>> Since we use double as the API type, should there not be a check for
>>> out-of-bounds values? Perhaps even #defined min and max values apps
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2 May 2012 12:57, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>> Hmm, any reason for not doing this instead?
>> *p = (int32_t)trunc(d * 256.0)
>
> Wow is that ever embarrassing.
>
>> Also, any rationale in choosing trunc() instead of round() or
>
Hi,
On 2 May 2012 12:57, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> Hmm, any reason for not doing this instead?
> *p = (int32_t)trunc(d * 256.0)
Wow is that ever embarrassing.
> Also, any rationale in choosing trunc() instead of round() or
> ceil/floor?
>
> trunc() makes
> 0.9 -> 0
> -0.9 -> 0
> which mean
On 05/02/2012 04:57 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2012 20:30:15 +0100
Daniel Stone wrote:
+ u = trunc(d);
+ *p = u<< 8;
+ *p |= (uint32_t) (trunc((fabs(d - u)) * (1<< 8)))&
0xff;
Hmm, any reason for not doing t
On Tue, 1 May 2012 20:30:15 +0100
Daniel Stone wrote:
> signed_24_8 is a signed decimal type which offers a sign bit, 23 bits of
> integer precision, and 8 bits of decimal precision. This is converted
> to double on the C API side, as passing through varargs involves an
> implicit type promotio
signed_24_8 is a signed decimal type which offers a sign bit, 23 bits of
integer precision, and 8 bits of decimal precision. This is converted
to double on the C API side, as passing through varargs involves an
implicit type promotion to double anyway.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone
---
src/Makefi
