sergiotarxz/libvips
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

stuff

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
John Cupitt 2010-08-11 15:57:37 +00:00
parent f76578fa4f
commit 6d97500587
2 changed files with 29 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

25
TODO
View File

@ -1,3 +1,28 @@
- large and puzzling performance regression cf. 7.18 on the benchmark
7.18
$ time ./vips.py wtc_tiled_small.tif wtc2.tif
vips warning: im_conv: 6534 overflows and 13439 underflows detected
real 0m1.891s
user 0m3.110s
sys 0m0.320s
7.20 (and 7.22)
$ time ./vips.py wtc_tiled_small.tif wtc2.tif
vips warning: im_conv: 6502 overflows and 13429 underflows detected
real 0m2.962s
user 0m4.950s
sys 0m0.250s
and why are the conv numbers different?
seems to be a difference in the bilinear interpolator? we did increase
accuracy in 7.18 -> 7.20
I suppose conv must have changed too?
- use D65 in cmsCreateLab4Profile() ? not sure - use D65 in cmsCreateLab4Profile() ? not sure

7
libvips/resample/interpolate.c
View File

@ -409,10 +409,11 @@ vips_interpolate_bilinear_interpolate( VipsInterpolate *interpolate,
const int tx = (six + 1) >> 1; const int tx = (six + 1) >> 1;
const int ty = (siy + 1) >> 1; const int ty = (siy + 1) >> 1;
/* We know x/y are always positive, so we can just (int) them. /* We want ((int)x) ... save this double -> int conversion by just
* shifting sx down.
*/ */
const int ix = (int) x; const int ix = sx >> (VIPS_TRANSFORM_SHIFT + 1);
const int iy = (int) y; const int iy = sy >> (VIPS_TRANSFORM_SHIFT + 1);
const PEL *p1 = (PEL *) IM_REGION_ADDR( in, ix, iy ); const PEL *p1 = (PEL *) IM_REGION_ADDR( in, ix, iy );
const PEL *p2 = p1 + ps; const PEL *p2 = p1 + ps;