On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 04:26:09PM -0800, AlexisWilke wrote:
> If it is true that the (index + c) can be larger than s->limiter_buf_size
> then the overflow potential has to be handled in the previous two statements.
>
> Signed-off-by: AlexisWilke <ale...@m2osw.com>
> ---
> libavfilter/af_loudnorm.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/libavfilter/af_loudnorm.c b/libavfilter/af_loudnorm.c
> index dbe7fba986..9e6a830a56 100644
> --- a/libavfilter/af_loudnorm.c
> +++ b/libavfilter/af_loudnorm.c
> @@ -206,10 +206,11 @@ static void detect_peak(LoudNormContext *s, int offset,
> int nb_samples, int chan
> continue;
>
> for (c = 0; c < channels; c++) {
> - if (c == 0 || fabs(buf[index + c]) > max_peak)
> - max_peak = fabs(buf[index + c]);> + int idx((index + c) < s->limiter_buf_size ? (index + c) > : (index + c - s->limiter_buf_size)); which compiler did build this successfully ? [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. -- Voltaire
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
