<div dir="ltr">Because the integral function is relying on the range being clamped to the non-zero portion for impulse filters and for box, and range checks are missing for some of the other filter functions, I would be tempted to remove the range check from here, and also from the impulse function (it would return 1 for all x). Oded did not like that idea but I wonder if you have any opinion. </div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Søren Sandmann Pedersen <<a href="mailto:soren.sandmann@gmail.com" target="_blank">soren.sandmann@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">From: Bill Spitzak <<a href="mailto:spitzak@gmail.com">spitzak@gmail.com</a>> v11: Restored range checks Signed-off-by: Bill Spitzak <<a href="mailto:spitzak@gmail.com">spitzak@gmail.com</a>> Reviewed-by: Oded Gabbay <<a href="mailto:oded.gabbay@gmail.com">oded.gabbay@gmail.com</a>> --- pixman/pixman-filter.c | 14 ++++++++------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/pixman/pixman-filter.c b/pixman/pixman-filter.c index 4abd05f..db4ab6e 100644 --- a/pixman/pixman-filter.c +++ b/pixman/pixman-filter.c @@ -109,14 +109,16 @@ general_cubic (double x, double B, double C) if (ax < 1) { - return ((12 - 9 * B - 6 * C) * ax * ax * ax + - (-18 + 12 * B + 6 * C) * ax * ax + (6 - 2 * B)) / 6; + return (((12 - 9 * B - 6 * C) * ax + + (-18 + 12 * B + 6 * C)) * ax * ax + + (6 - 2 * B)) / 6; } - else if (ax >= 1 && ax < 2) + else if (ax < 2) { - return ((-B - 6 * C) * ax * ax * ax + - (6 * B + 30 * C) * ax * ax + (-12 * B - 48 * C) * - ax + (8 * B + 24 * C)) / 6; + return ((((-B - 6 * C) * ax + + (6 * B + 30 * C)) * ax + + (-12 * B - 48 * C)) * ax + + (8 * B + 24 * C)) / 6; } else { -- 1.7.11.7 </blockquote></div> </div>