On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:29:02AM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> On 20.11.2016 21:52, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 08:55:44PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> >> On 20.11.2016 12:57, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>> + if (intnum == 1 && d == (double)UINT64_MAX) {
> >>> + *(int64_t *)dst = UINT64_MAX;
> >>
> >> Is there a reason why this uses int64_t,
> >>
> >>> + } else if (o->max > INT64_MAX + 1ULL && d > INT64_MAX + 1ULL) {
> >>> + *(uint64_t *)dst = (llrint(d - (INT64_MAX + 1ULL)) +
> >>> (INT64_MAX + 1ULL))*intnum;
> >>
> >> but this uint64_t,
> >>
> >>> + } else {
> >>> + *(int64_t *)dst = llrint(d) * intnum;
> >>
> >> and this again int64_t?
> >
> > these are left over from the year old patch this is based on
> > fixed locally
>
> OK. Now I've another question. Why does the check involve o->max?
> Is the out-of-range check at the beginning of write_number not
> sufficient?removed, this too came from the old patch thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty. -- Plato
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
