On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 7:38 PM DEEPAK VARMA <mh12gx2825@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 08:06:34AM +0000, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote: > I further reviewed current and proposed implementation of the > get_filter_freq() function[Thank you Stefano for your time]. We realised that I > was wrong in swapping DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST calls with mixing > multiplication in it. It is indeed incorrect to mix multiplication if we > want to reorder the calls. Comparison of the results from current and > proposed implementation proved it. In short, the patch I sent is wrong. > My apologies for any trouble. No problem, that's what community is for! And everybody has been learning always something new. > We have further improved the test program with a revised implementation > [attached with this email] and found that this revision appears to > provide more accurate results [I think]. > > May I please request you to review the attached test program, verify the > results and share your feedback. Do you have GH account? I would highly recommend to use its Gist facility for such small (one file) type of programs. It allows you to update them and see versioning. Dunno if possible to comment, but anyway more advantages. Thank you! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
