Hi, > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2017-11-12 20:30 GMT+01:00 Umair Khan <omerj...@gmail.com>: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> 2017-11-12 20:05 GMT+01:00 Umair Khan <omerj...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> The attached patch fixes the address sanitizer issue. >>>> >>>> Breaks compilation here, how did you test? >>>> >>>> libavcodec/alsdec.c: In function ‘decode_var_block_data’: >>>> libavcodec/alsdec.c:938:7: error: expected ‘}’ before ‘else’ >>> >>> Sorry for the faulty patch. Here is the fixed one. >> >> The commit message of your patch is: >> libavcodec/als: fix address sanitization error in decoder >> >> Is there an error in current FFmpeg git head that asan >> shows? If not, the commit message makes no sense. >> >> I believe you should send two patches that are meant >> to be committed together, one of them fixing ticket #6297. > > This is the complete patchset.
I need some days to find time to test this, earliest during the weekend I fear... What happens for block_length < residual_index < opt_order? Another way of asking would be, where is the second loop from specs page 30 for that case? (ISO/IEC 14496) I think what puzzles CE is, that the problematic if() from the other patches is still untouched by your patch. So how could this be a valid solution even if your patch would actually improve the prediction part... And I wonder the same ;) Did you run FATE with your patch applied? I assume a big difference in output at the first glance (means FATE aks the conformance files should fail...) Thanks for driving this forward anyway :) -Thilo _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
