Changeset 1130 for cpp/frams/model/similarity/EMD/emd.c

Timestamp:

04/16/21 15:55:34 (4 years ago)

Author:

Maciej Komosinski

Message:

Used std::min(), std::max() explicitly to avoid compiler confusion. Used std::size() explicitly instead of the equivalent macro

File:

• cpp/frams/model/similarity/EMD/emd.c (modified) (6 diffs)

cpp/frams/model/similarity/EMD/emd.c

@@ -19 +19 @@
 #include <stdlib.h>
 #include <math.h>
+#include <algorithm>
 
 #include "emd.h"
@@ -100 +101 @@
 {
   int itr;
-  int max_n = max(_n1, _n2); //max_n was introduced in r1062 instead of the #defined constant MAX_SIG_SIZE1=1000 in the original implementation. max_n is better than the constant, but it would be even better to use either _n1 or _n2, if we only knew what size each individual array should precisely have.
+  int max_n = std::max(_n1, _n2); //max_n was introduced in r1062 instead of the #defined constant MAX_SIG_SIZE1=1000 in the original implementation. max_n is better than the constant, but it would be even better to use either _n1 or _n2, if we only knew what size each individual array should precisely have.
   double totalCost;
   float w;
@@ -211 +212 @@
 {
   int i, j;
-  int max_n = max(_n1, _n2); //max_n was introduced in r1062 instead of the #defined constant MAX_SIG_SIZE1=1000 in the original implementation. max_n is better than the constant, but it would be even better to use either _n1 or _n2, if we only knew what size each individual array should precisely have.
+  int max_n = std::max(_n1, _n2); //max_n was introduced in r1062 instead of the #defined constant MAX_SIG_SIZE1=1000 in the original implementation. max_n is better than the constant, but it would be even better to use either _n1 or _n2, if we only knew what size each individual array should precisely have.
   double sSum, dSum, diff;
   feature_t *P1, *P2;
@@ -474 +475 @@
 {
     int i, j, k;
-    int max_n = max(_n1, _n2); //max_n was introduced in r1062 instead of the #defined constant MAX_SIG_SIZE1=1000 in the original implementation. max_n is better than the constant, but it would be even better to use either _n1 or _n2, if we only knew what size each individual array should precisely have.
+    int max_n = std::max(_n1, _n2); //max_n was introduced in r1062 instead of the #defined constant MAX_SIG_SIZE1=1000 in the original implementation. max_n is better than the constant, but it would be even better to use either _n1 or _n2, if we only knew what size each individual array should precisely have.
     double xMin;
     int steps;
@@ -555 +556 @@
 {
   int i, steps;
-  int max_n = max(_n1, _n2); //max_n was introduced in r1062 instead of the #defined constant MAX_SIG_SIZE1=1000 in the original implementation. max_n is better than the constant, but it would be even better to use either _n1 or _n2, if we only knew what size each individual array should precisely have.
+  int max_n = std::max(_n1, _n2); //max_n was introduced in r1062 instead of the #defined constant MAX_SIG_SIZE1=1000 in the original implementation. max_n is better than the constant, but it would be even better to use either _n1 or _n2, if we only knew what size each individual array should precisely have.
   node2_t **CurX, *NewX;
   char *IsUsed=new char[2*max_n]; 
@@ -652 +653 @@
 {
   int i, j, found, minI, minJ;
-  int max_n = max(_n1, _n2); //max_n was introduced in r1062 instead of the #defined constant MAX_SIG_SIZE1=1000 in the original implementation. max_n is better than the constant, but it would be even better to use either _n1 or _n2, if we only knew what size each individual array should precisely have.
+  int max_n = std::max(_n1, _n2); //max_n was introduced in r1062 instead of the #defined constant MAX_SIG_SIZE1=1000 in the original implementation. max_n is better than the constant, but it would be even better to use either _n1 or _n2, if we only knew what size each individual array should precisely have.
   double deltaMin, oldVal, diff;
   double** Delta = new double*[_n1];