On 6/11/2017 10:21 AM, 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? > > Do you think about yourself like holy cow in any aspect of FFmpeg, > security or not.
Please, can we all calm down? This is escalating way too much... _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
