On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:01 AM, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/5/2016 11:51 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 11:44:04PM -0300, James Almer wrote: >>> On 1/5/2016 11:35 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 11:27:25PM -0300, James Almer wrote: >>>>> On 1/5/2016 11:21 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> [...] >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ideally, once this decoder is committed replacing the current one we'd >>>>> replace >>>>> the samples for the set available here: >>>>> https://github.com/foo86/dcadec-samples >>>> >>>> we can add new fate samples, we cannot replace fate samples >>>> replacing would break previous checkouts and releases >>>> not sure you actually meant to replace any ... >>> >>> Yeah, forgot about that. Kinda makes for a bloated fate suit in the long >>> run... >> >> this wouldnt happen if reference files where properly generated >> that is with some reference decoder or taken from the input to a >> reference encoder or from some referece test suite. >> >> for subtitles or other where files are tiny that is a non issue though >> ... > > Well, whoever made the xll test knew it would probably become obsolete at some > point, since the decoder was not bitexact when the pcm reference was created. > At least i assume that's why the test fails with this new bitexact decoder.
If its properly bitexact now, we can use a md5 test instead of needing a reference sample, so that would safe us adding a new one. It would be nice to add all the tests from the dcadec test suite later to get more coverage, dca is slightly under-tested as it is. - Hendrik _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
