On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 12:30:40PM +0200, Manuel Lauss wrote: > Servus Michael, > > On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 12:51 AM Michael Niedermayer > <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > > > > > /* smooth top and left block borders with neighbours */ > > > > > - if (((pxoff - p + k) < 0) || ((pxoff - p + k) >= maxpxo) > > > > > + if (((pxoff - p + 0) < 0) || ((pxoff - p + k) >= maxpxo) > > > > > || ((pxoff + 3 * p) < 0) || ((pxoff + 3 * p) >= > > > > > maxpxo) > > > > > || (i == 0) || (j == 0)) > > > > > continue; > > > > > > Oops, yes, that change is correct. > > > > will apply > > > > > > > I think you should just rip the whole block-smoothing block out > > > entirely: it creates a "sawtooth" pattern > > > which is more annoying than the "blockiness" it tries to soften. > > > > probably, but i just wanted to fix the out of array access, > > ill leave improvment beyond that to others > > Is it OK if I just remove this block entirely? I'd commit that along > with the other 2 sanm patches I have.
i think you dont understand the bug my change is fixing
Its an out of array access in:
for (k = 0; k < 4; k++)
*(dst + pxoff + k) = ((*(dst + pxoff + k) + *(dst + pxoff -
p + k)) >> 1) & 0x7f;
The hunk:
/* smooth top and left block borders with neighbours */
if (((pxoff - p + k) < 0) || ((pxoff - p + k) >= maxpxo)
|| ((pxoff + 3 * p) < 0) || ((pxoff + 3 * p) >= maxpxo)
|| (i == 0) || (j == 0))
continue;
skips this code. If the hunk is removed and nothing else is changed
its MORE buggy as there will be more out of array accesses
thx
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
For a strong democracy, genuine criticism is necessary, allegations benefit
noone, they just cause unnecessary conflicts. - Narendra Modi
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".
