On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:56:07AM -0800, Dale Curtis wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Michael Niedermayer > wrote:
> >
> > I dont think wrap_bits can/should be > 64 or do i miss something ?
> >
>
> Good point, this seems true with the current code.
>
>
> >
> > maybe a av_assert* for t
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> I dont think wrap_bits can/should be > 64 or do i miss something ?
>
Good point, this seems true with the current code.
>
> maybe a av_assert* for that would be better.
>
Done; used av_assert2().
wrap_bits_v5.patch
Description:
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:19:38PM -0800, Dale Curtis wrote:
> Ah, realized this approach can work for wrap_bits == 64 too. Updated the
> patch.
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Dale Curtis
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer <
> > mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrot
Ah, realized this approach can work for wrap_bits == 64 too. Updated the
patch.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Dale Curtis
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer <
> mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think that could end with the correct result
>>
>>
> Thanks for
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> I think that could end with the correct result
>
>
Thanks for the review. Done.
- dale
From fc7fb3511aa40810e64d9dacbd33d1e9336d0c52 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dale Curtis
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:35:56 -0800
Subject: [PATCH]
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:15:24PM -0800, Dale Curtis wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Michael Niedermayer <
> mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:05:05PM -0800, Dale Curtis wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Michael Niedermayer
> > > > > wrote:
>
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Michael Niedermayer <
mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:05:05PM -0800, Dale Curtis wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Michael Niedermayer
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > this would skip the code for wrap_bits >= 63, this does not look
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:05:05PM -0800, Dale Curtis wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Michael Niedermayer > wrote:
> >
> > this would skip the code for wrap_bits >= 63, this does not look
> > correct
> >
>
> Why do you think that's incorrect? The max int64_t value is 1 << 63 and 2
> <<
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> this would skip the code for wrap_bits >= 63, this does not look
> correct
>
Why do you think that's incorrect? The max int64_t value is 1 << 63 and 2
<< 63 == 1 << 64 ?
- dale
___
ffmpeg-
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 01:46:39PM -0800, Dale Curtis wrote:
> Derp, actually, 2 << 63 doesn't fit in int64_t either, this check should be
> < 63. Fixed.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Dale Curtis
> wrote:
>
> > 2 << (wrap_bits=64 - 1) does not fit in int64_t; apply the check
> > use
Derp, actually, 2 << 63 doesn't fit in int64_t either, this check should be
< 63. Fixed.
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Dale Curtis
wrote:
> 2 << (wrap_bits=64 - 1) does not fit in int64_t; apply the check
> used in other places that handle wrap bits to ensure the values
> are <= 63.
>
> Sig
2 << (wrap_bits=64 - 1) does not fit in int64_t; apply the check
used in other places that handle wrap bits to ensure the values
are <= 63.
Signed-off-by: Dale Curtis
From c566067623760a24f729ac5197c20531b9e518ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dale Curtis
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:35:56 -0800
Su
12 matches
Mail list logo
