On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 12:52:45PM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 02:50:42 +0200
> Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>
> > Suggested-by: "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbul...@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc>
> > ---
> > doc/developer.texi | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/developer.texi b/doc/developer.texi
> > index dbe1f5421f..a948113792 100644
> > --- a/doc/developer.texi
> > +++ b/doc/developer.texi
> > @@ -131,6 +131,11 @@ designated struct initializers (@samp{struct s x = @{
> > .i = 17 @};});
> >
> > @item
> > compound literals (@samp{x = (struct s) @{ 17, 23 @};}).
> > +
> > +@item
> > +Implementation defined behavior for signed integers is assumed to match the
> > +expected for Twos complement. Non representable values in integer casts
> > are binary
>
> Patch is ok, but "the expected for Twos complement" sounds a bit weird.
> Maybe "expected behavior"? Also "two's complement".applied with these modifications [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Rewriting code that is poorly written but fully understood is good. Rewriting code that one doesnt understand is a sign that one is less smart then the original author, trying to rewrite it will not make it better.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
