On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:31 PM, wm4 wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:05:28 -0400
> Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>
>> More generally, how is this problem "easy to verify"? It may be
>> included indirectly, etc. Since you seem to think it is easy, go ahead
>
> Indirect inclusion is IMHO not fine for s
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:31 PM, wm4 wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:05:28 -0400
> Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>
>> More generally, how is this problem "easy to verify"? It may be
>> included indirectly, etc. Since you seem to think it is easy, go ahead
>
> Indirect inclusion is IMHO not fine for s
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Ronald S. Bu
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:05:28 -0400
Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> More generally, how is this problem "easy to verify"? It may be
> included indirectly, etc. Since you seem to think it is easy, go ahead
Indirect inclusion is IMHO not fine for such compat headers which
define standard functions on s
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:50:46AM +0100, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Ronald S. Bultje
> > wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Michael Niedermayer
> >> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Ronald S. Bultje
>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Michael Niedermayer >>> wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:19
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Michael Niedermayer >> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:19:59AM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>>> > This is more concise
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Michael Niedermayer > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:19:59AM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> > This is more concise and conveys the intent better.
>> > Furthermore, it is likely more pre
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Ronald S. Bultje
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Michael Niedermayer
>> > >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Th
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Ronald S. Bultje
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Michael Niedermayer
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:19:59AM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> >> > This
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Michael Niedermayer > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:19:59AM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> > This is more concise and conveys the intent better.
>> > Furthermore, it is likely more pre
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:19:59AM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> > This is more concise and conveys the intent better.
> > Furthermore, it is likely more precise as well due to lack of floating
> > point division.
> >
> > Sig
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:19:59AM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> This is more concise and conveys the intent better.
> Furthermore, it is likely more precise as well due to lack of floating
> point division.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadde
patchset tested on linux32, inux64, mingw32,
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:36 AM, wm4 wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:27:20 -0400
> Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:43 AM, wm4 wrote:
>> > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:19:59 -0400
>> > Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> >
>> >> This is more concise and conveys the intent better.
>>
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:27:20 -0400
Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:43 AM, wm4 wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:19:59 -0400
> > Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> >
> >> This is more concise and conveys the intent better.
> >> Furthermore, it is likely more precise as well due
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:43 AM, wm4 wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:19:59 -0400
> Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>
>> This is more concise and conveys the intent better.
>> Furthermore, it is likely more precise as well due to lack of floating
>> point division.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadd
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:19:59 -0400
Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> This is more concise and conveys the intent better.
> Furthermore, it is likely more precise as well due to lack of floating
> point division.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadde
> ---
These patches are all pretty similar. And li
This is more concise and conveys the intent better.
Furthermore, it is likely more precise as well due to lack of floating
point division.
Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadde
---
ffmpeg.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/ffmpeg.c b/ffmpeg.c
index f91fb7b..148c21b
19 matches
Mail list logo