On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 08:08:54AM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 9/25/15, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde >> >> <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> This fixes -Wshift-negative-value reported with clang 3.7+, e.g >> >>> http://fate.ffmpeg.org/log.cgi?time=20150919172459&log=compile&slot=x86_64-darwin-clang-polly-notiling-3.7. >> >>> Note that the patch crucially depends on int >= 32 bits, >> >>> an assumption made in many places in the codebase. >> >>> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> >> >>> --- >> >>> libavcodec/apedec.c | 2 +- >> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >>> >> >>> diff --git a/libavcodec/apedec.c b/libavcodec/apedec.c >> >>> index 5536e0f..7b34d26 100644 >> >>> --- a/libavcodec/apedec.c >> >>> +++ b/libavcodec/apedec.c >> >>> @@ -1281,7 +1281,7 @@ static void do_apply_filter(APEContext *ctx, int >> >>> version, APEFilter *f, >> >>> /* Update the adaption coefficients */ >> >>> absres = FFABS(res); >> >>> if (absres) >> >>> - *f->adaptcoeffs = ((res & (-1<<31)) ^ (-1<<30)) >> >> >>> + *f->adaptcoeffs = ((res & (-(1<<31))) ^ (-(1<<30))) >> >> >>> (25 + (absres <= f->avg*3) + (absres >> >>> <= >> >>> f->avg*4/3)); >> >>> else >> >>> *f->adaptcoeffs = 0; >> >>> -- >> >>> 2.5.2 >> >>> >> >> >> >> ping >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> ffmpeg-devel mailing list >> >> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >> >> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel >> >> >> > >> > I guess its fine if fate passes. >> >> Can't confirm that on my end, since I don't know if my fate runs a >> test for this. Can someone tell me an easy way to check if make fate >> tests a particular code or note for future reference? > > easy way: add abort() in the codepath that changes > and run fate, if it passes it was not tested
thanks for the tip. > >> >> On the other hand, note that -(1 << n) and (-1 << n) are identical at >> least on GCC and clang, so I think this should be fine. > > yes > > applied > > thx > > [...] > -- > Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB > > The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision > of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet > notwithstanding go out to meet it. -- Thucydides > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
