Soft Works: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Andreas >> Rheinhardt >> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 11:38 PM >> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Patchwork FATE Errors >> >> Soft Works: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Andreas >>>> Rheinhardt >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 10:22 PM >>>> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >>>> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Patchwork FATE Errors >>>> >>>> Soft Works: >>>>> >>>>> andriy/make_fate_ppc >>>>> >>>>> => Does it possibly need 'make fate-rsync'? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No. The test does not rely on need samples; >>> >>> It was just a very quick guess, because yesterday I rebased and >>> saw the test matroska-dovi-write-config7 failing which was fixed >>> after fate-rsync - that's why I though it might be the same reason >>> (with make -jX, it's probably not deterministic, which test will >>> fail first). >>> >>> >>>> and the other test that uses >>>> this sample works fine. Some time ago, someone else wrote FATE tests for >>>> AVDOVIDecoderConfigurationRecord in Matroska >>>> (https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/project/ffmpeg/patch/20220101165153.440729- >> 6- >>>> tcchlis...@gmail.com/). >>>> These were faulty and one of them relied on a sample that has apparently >>>> never been uploaded (but this test is actually redundant with the other >>>> test), so I investigated and saw that the test (presumably >>>> unintentially) reencoded audio, so I switched it to a pure copy test and >>>> applied it, believing that codec-copy tests could not possibly for some >>>> arches. That was a mistake and I am deeply sorry for this mess. >>> >>> Nevermind - things happen.. >>> >>> >>> BTW, I was thinking about submitting a patch for libavutil/tests/md5.c >>> >>> something like: >>> >>> #ifdef __GNUC__ >>> #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdiscarded-qualifiers" >>> #endif >>> >>> #ifdef __clang__ >>> #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wdiscarded-qualifiers" >>> #endif >>> >>> Would that make sense? >>> Those warnings are appearing in every single fate error output on >> patchwork, >>> possibly covering up more relevant things. >>> >> >> Instead of pragmas one should limit the volatile to those compilers >> which miscompile the code without them. >> (IMO one does not need to find the exact set of compilers that >> miscompile this; all that matters is that recent versions don't give >> warnings and old versions don't miscompile. If some compilers of medium >> age still show this warning afterwards without needing the volatile, so >> be it.) > > You mean like this? > > #if defined(__clang__) && defined(__clang_major__) && __clang_major__ < 4 > volatile uint8_t in[1000]; // volatile to workaround > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20849 > #else > uint8_t in[1000]; > #endif >
I would not use an else branch, but only put the volatile and the comment in the #if branch. > > It was fixed in 3.5.1, so "medium age" would be 3.5.1 to 4.0.0 > Fine by me if tested. - Andreas _______________________________________________ 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".
