seems the `sclip` macro was never used
---
libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h b/libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h
index 92dc2911a3..c1dcdbb5ed 100644
--- a/libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h
+++ b/libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h
@@
---
libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h b/libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h
index c1dcdbb5ed..c56abc68a7 100644
--- a/libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h
+++ b/libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ sta
Remove an unneeded inner loop in adjust_frame_information that
had no effect, the loop body can be run only once and will compute
the same max sfb.
---
libavcodec/aacenc.c | 8 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libavcodec/aacenc.c b/libavcodec/aacenc.c
index 7f
the condition being tested was the same as the stop condition for the
containing loop,
so inside the loop it would always test positive
---
libavcodec/aacenc_tns.c | 7 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libavcodec/aacenc_tns.c b/libavcodec/aacenc_tns.c
index 60
is bad for readability and maintenance (definitely
confused me...)
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 2:19 PM Timo Rothenpieler
wrote:
> On 12.05.2024 10:53, Yotam Ofek wrote:
> > the condition being tested was the same as the stop condition for the
> containing loop,
> > so inside t
Bump :)
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024, 12:26 Yotam Ofek wrote:
> seems the `sclip` macro was never used
> ---
> libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h b/libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h
> index 92dc2911
Bump :)
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024, 13:21 Yotam Ofek wrote:
> ---
> libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h b/libavcodec/aaccoder_twoloop.h
> index c1dcdbb5ed..c56abc68a7 100644
