On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 03:21:38PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: > On 6/11/17, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:07:39PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Michael Niedermayer > >> <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:35:07PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Michael Niedermayer > >> > <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Signed value in > >> > > > Unsigned > >> > > > INTeger type > >> > > > >> > > [..] > >> > > > Both SUINT and unsigned should produce identical binaries > >> > > > >> > > This seems to go against the rule that code should be as simple as > >> > possible. > >> > > > >> > > Unsigned is simpler than SUINT if the outcome is the same. > >> > > >> > You can simply add the part of my mail here as awnser that you snipped > >> > away: > >> > > >> > "But it makes the code hard to understand and maintain because these > >> > values are not positive integers but signed integers. Which for > >> > C standard compliance need to be stored in a unsigned type." > >> > > >> > A type that avoids the undefinedness of signed but is semantically > >> > signed is correct, unsigned is not. > >> > > >> > If understandable code and maintainable code has no value to you, > >> > you would favour using single letter variables exclusivly and would > >> > never use typedef. > >> > But you do not do that. > >> > > >> > I fail to understand why you insist on using unsigned in place of a > >> > more specific type, it is not the correct nor clean thing to do. > >> > >> > >> It's not just me, it appears to be most of us. Can't you just step back > >> at > >> some point and be like "ok, I'll let the majority have their way"? > >
> > I do not know what the majority prefers. What i see is that the > > people objecting are always the same 3-4 people. And very often > > they have no authorship or past activity in the code a patch is about. > > At least none i could find quickly. > > How dare you speak like that about me? About you ? It was not intended to be about you nor was it intended to insult anyone. Iam not sure why one would think otherwise. if i search now for onemda and mails matching SUINT there are only 5 matches, 2 or 3 of these have SUINT just in context IIUC. none is a reply to a patch from me in which you object due to SUINT. I did realize you arent in favor of the type but i didnt precive you as objecting to patches because of it. and I definitly tried to use unsigned instead of SUINT in the first place for code you wrote or maintain, if i made a mistake somewhere tell me and ill fix it. Also not complaining about it but people called the type a rootkit or part of a rootkit (thus kind of implying that i would add an exploit or rootkit), said i would ignore the majority and recommanded me to step back. (It wasnt you and it totally doesnt matter who did) but thats not exactly nice ... i should feel offended instead of you, no ? > > Do you think about yourself like holy cow in any aspect of FFmpeg, > security or not. no, certainly not. [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead. -- Aristotle
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
