On 10/31/2024 3:34 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 04:50:47PM -0300, James Almer wrote:On 10/29/2024 4:29 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 01:03:21PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 07:56:29PM -0300, James Almer wrote:On 10/25/2024 7:18 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 04:36:44PM -0300, James Almer wrote:Signed-off-by: James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> --- libswscale/output.c | 37 +++++++++++++++--------- libswscale/utils.c | 4 +-- tests/ref/fate/filter-pixdesc-xv48be | 1 + tests/ref/fate/filter-pixdesc-xv48le | 1 + tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-copy | 2 ++ tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-crop | 2 ++ tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-field | 2 ++ tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-fieldorder | 2 ++ tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-hflip | 2 ++ tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-il | 2 ++ tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-null | 2 ++ tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-scale | 2 ++ tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-transpose | 2 ++ tests/ref/fate/filter-pixfmts-vflip | 2 ++ 14 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tests/ref/fate/filter-pixdesc-xv48be create mode 100644 tests/ref/fate/filter-pixdesc-xv48ledidnt apply cleanly so no test but LGTM thxIt was Niklas recent renaming patch. You can try a rebased version inhttps://github.com/jamrial/FFmpeg/commits/pixdesc/thanks, that helped, swscale patches seem turning stale within the 500ms transit time to the ML the swscale changes in that branch look good tests seems passing on mingw32/64 linux x86-32/64 and mipsi had to leave before qemu arm tests finished and of course arm faild :) make fate-pixfmt-x2bgr10le fate-pixfmt-x2rgb10le -k TEST pixfmt-x2bgr10le --- src/tests/ref/fate/pixfmt-x2bgr10le 2024-10-29 20:26:42.011219228 +0100 +++ tests/data/fate/pixfmt-x2bgr10le 2024-10-29 20:28:11.519912980 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ -028652e885aef68639341bbc8415be57 *tests/data/pixfmt/x2bgr10le.yuv +040ceb964e1401b964d72f97c44ca596 *tests/data/pixfmt/x2bgr10le.yuv 15206400 tests/data/pixfmt/x2bgr10le.yuv Test pixfmt-x2bgr10le failed. Look at tests/data/fate/pixfmt-x2bgr10le.err for details. make: *** [src/tests/Makefile:311: fate-pixfmt-x2bgr10le] Error 1 TEST pixfmt-x2rgb10le --- src/tests/ref/fate/pixfmt-x2rgb10le 2024-10-29 20:26:42.011219228 +0100 +++ tests/data/fate/pixfmt-x2rgb10le 2024-10-29 20:28:12.371919593 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ -028652e885aef68639341bbc8415be57 *tests/data/pixfmt/x2rgb10le.yuv +040ceb964e1401b964d72f97c44ca596 *tests/data/pixfmt/x2rgb10le.yuv 15206400 tests/data/pixfmt/x2rgb10le.yuv Test pixfmt-x2rgb10le failed. Look at tests/data/fate/pixfmt-x2rgb10le.err for details. make: *** [src/tests/Makefile:311: fate-pixfmt-x2rgb10le] Error 1 thxThat is a test from a patch i didn't push, so not a problem in git head at least. Is that a BE arm machine?noThe only thing i can think about is the check in swscale/output.c for AV_PIX_FMT_X2RGB10, which for that target would become AV_PIX_FMT_X2RGB10BE, and thus not trigger with this test. This is IMO wrong because the yuv2packed* pointers are in turn set for both LE and BE.arm has some funny behavior with misaligned 32bit access that is IIRC, if you cast a uint8_t * to int * and it was not an address thats a multiple of 4 and derefernce you can get results that you dont expect IIRC. if that makes no sense then i dont know, but tell me and ill just retest
I tried applying the patch adding this test and running it under gcc-ubsan and it didn't complain about unaligned accesses, so i don't know what could be happening if that target is not BE.
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital 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".
