On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> >> --- >> libavcodec/apedec.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/libavcodec/apedec.c b/libavcodec/apedec.c >> index 7b34d26..05cb17e 100644 >> --- a/libavcodec/apedec.c >> +++ b/libavcodec/apedec.c >> @@ -1281,7 +1281,7 @@ static void do_apply_filter(APEContext *ctx, int >> version, APEFilter *f, >> /* Update the adaption coefficients */ >> absres = FFABS(res); >> if (absres) >> - *f->adaptcoeffs = ((res & (-(1<<31))) ^ (-(1<<30))) >> >> + *f->adaptcoeffs = ((res & 0x80000000) ^ (-(1<<30))) >> >> (25 + (absres <= f->avg*3) + (absres <= >> f->avg*4/3)); >> else >> *f->adaptcoeffs = 0; >> -- >> 2.6.0 > > > I wonder if some compilers will complain that this overflows (strictly > speaking it does) and that it should be -0x80000000 instead?
please ignore current patch, breaks fate. Ronald's idea also breaks fate. > > Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
