On 10/30/2012 11:49 PM, JL VT wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Dmitry Kazakov wrot= e: >> Well, the integer solution might be quite good idea for some of the >> composite ops. When I investigated into the topic, I thought about it, b= ut I >> faced with two problems I had no idea how to solve it: >> >> 1) The sse instruction set does not have integer division instruction. S= o it >> will have to be workarounded somehow. >> 2) Integer multiplication instructions change the size of the operands. I >> didn't know how to solve it properly. > Forgive me if I say something completely out of place, but if you mean > you get out-of-bond errors with integer multiplication, there are MMX > operations that solve the bound problem by clipping values. Yes, for multiplication you use a biased keep-low 16 bit unsigned = multiplication (there is no keep high unsigned version) and subsequent = shifts. It does not change the size of the operands (though you need to = use 16 bit anyway). But the division is not so easy. You either cast to float and back or = have to implement your own division algorithm. Greetings Andr=E9 _______________________________________________ kimageshop mailing list kimageshop@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kimageshop