On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:07:39PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:35:07PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Michael Niedermayer > > <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Signed value in > > > > Unsigned > > > > INTeger type > > > > > > [..] > > > > Both SUINT and unsigned should produce identical binaries > > > > > > This seems to go against the rule that code should be as simple as > > possible. > > > > > > Unsigned is simpler than SUINT if the outcome is the same. > > > > You can simply add the part of my mail here as awnser that you snipped > > away: > > > > "But it makes the code hard to understand and maintain because these > > values are not positive integers but signed integers. Which for > > C standard compliance need to be stored in a unsigned type." > > > > A type that avoids the undefinedness of signed but is semantically > > signed is correct, unsigned is not. > > > > If understandable code and maintainable code has no value to you, > > you would favour using single letter variables exclusivly and would > > never use typedef. > > But you do not do that. > > > > I fail to understand why you insist on using unsigned in place of a > > more specific type, it is not the correct nor clean thing to do. > > > It's not just me, it appears to be most of us. Can't you just step back at > some point and be like "ok, I'll let the majority have their way"?
I do not know what the majority prefers. What i see is that the people objecting are always the same 3-4 people. And very often they have no authorship or past activity in the code a patch is about. At least none i could find quickly. To me that makes these objections seem a bit out of place, more so because i just dont "get it" why people are against using a more specific type. The majority might prefer either way, i have no idea ... I very much want to choose the types and style the people activly working on some code prefer. But when i look at git shortlog of code and look at the copyright/author statments and look at MAINTAINERs and compare to the names in a thread i often find no real match. Also as i said, i belive a more specific type makes maintaince easier, thats why i want to use it in code i maintain. In code others maintain, if they see no value in it theres really alot less an argument to use it. with a specific type in this case here one can add a line and test if the FFT overflows and where it does so, if it ever produces a bad result for a real world file. With just unsigned theres no easy way to find a overflow, one has to painstakingly test this line by line by hand. If the people who intend to debug such issues see no value in a more specific type, no sense in using one. Iam fighting on this issue because i see this pushing FFmpeg into a direction where the code is harder to understand and harder to maintain and we already have many open bugs Do the people objecting to SUINT volunteer to do the extra maintaince work that may be caused by not using it ? or do they expect the existing maintainers not to use SUINT and then also do the extra work? its that 2nd case that offends me as iam one of the people who tries to maintain some of the code in question (not the fft of this patch here specifically) thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others. -- Socrates
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
