lvqcl wrote: > I changed the condition in *_precompute_partition_info_sums_*() > functions from > if(bps <= 16) > to > if(FLAC__bitmath_ilog2(default_partition_samples) + bps < 32) > > and then changed the 'subframe_bps' argument of find_best_partition_order_() > in evaluate_fixed_subframe_() and evaluate_lpc_subframe_() as follows: > > evaluate_fixed_subframe_(): evaluate_lpc_subframe_(): > 1) subframe_bps + order subframe_bps + 0 > 2) subframe_bps + order subframe_bps + 2 > 3) subframe_bps + order subframe_bps + 4 > 4) subframe_bps + 4 subframe_bps + 4 > > Version 0 hangs during encoding. So Miroslav was right, it is necessary > to increase bps for lpc subframes as well. Versions 1...3 have identical > encoding speed. So it's possible to play safe and just choose > "subframe_bps + 4" in both cases. This is equivalent to the patch in > http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2014-June/004771.html > (this patch also adds 4 to subframe_bps, but in different place). > > So I think it's a matter of taste which patch to prefer: this -- > http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2014-June/004771.html > or this -- > http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2013-July/004303.html
I much prefer the second version because its such a trivial patch. Howver, exactly because it is such a trivial patch it would be easy for someone to remove the "+ 4" again and break it. Before I commit this, I'd like to have a test that triggers this problem. Let me work on that. Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ _______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev