On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Both the -2*1<<30 or the INT32_MIN idea work. I can create a patch based on either of these depending on what people prefer. > >> >> Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
