- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Can the source and destination parameters for ippsFIR_32fc (the non-inline version) safely be the same array?
Thanks
Link Copied
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
That would be for the in-place version. I'm interested the non-in-place version, which doesn't specify whether pSrc and pDst can be the same thing.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Starting from 7.1.1 you can safely use pSrc=pDst for all functions that have _I analogue, moreover - all such "_I" functions are marked as deprecated with reccomendation to use corresponding out-of-place functionality with pSrc=pDst.
4 Sergey - don't use "direct" functions - they are also marked as deprecated and most of them internaly are implemented with InitAlloc and call to a function with state - so "direct" in most cases are just wrappers - for the question "why" I have only 1 answer - historically...
regards, Igor
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Igor Astakhov (Intel) wrote:
Starting from 7.1.1 you can safely use pSrc=pDst for all functions that have _I analogue, moreover - all such "_I" functions are marked as deprecated with reccomendation to use corresponding out-of-place functionality with pSrc=pDst.
4 Sergey - don't use "direct" functions - they are also marked as deprecated and most of them internaly are implemented with InitAlloc and call to a function with state - so "direct" in most cases are just wrappers - for the question "why" I have only 1 answer - historically...
Thanks Igor. I've already replaced the simpler _I functions (add, mul, div, etc), but wasn't sure that the same applied to the FIR functions - thanks for confirming that. I'm in the process of replacing the ippsFIRDirect functions with their non-direct counterparts too.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Igor Astakhov (Intel) wrote:
Starting from 7.1.1 you can safely use pSrc=pDst for all functions that have _I analogue, moreover - all such "_I" functions are marked as deprecated with reccomendation to use corresponding out-of-place functionality with pSrc=pDst.
ippsFIR_32fc(Data, Data, FrameLength, FirStateCmplx); //<- This does not work
ippsFIR_32fc_I(Data, FrameLength, FirStateCmplx); //<- This does work
It looks like a temporary array will be needed, in IPP 7.1.0 at least. I'll test on 7.1.1 and see what happens there.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Actually, it looks like I might be stuck on 7.1.0. Let me look into this a bit further.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi James,
we fixed all issues with pSrc==pDst (for out-of-place functions that have in-place deprecated analogues) in 7.1.1. If you find any problems in 7.1.1 with pSrc==pDst - please submit a bug - it will be fixed ASAP.
Regards, Igor
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Thanks Igor, it looks like I jumped the gun. Version 7.1.1 fixes the problem.
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page