On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 08:11:08PM -0700, Alex Converse wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 02:21:47PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > --- a/libavcodec/vorbisdec.c > >> > +++ b/libavcodec/vorbisdec.c > >> > @@ -1095,9 +1095,6 @@ static int vorbis_floor0_decode(vorbis_context *vc, > >> > for (i = 0; i < order; i++) > >> > lsp[i] = 2.0f * cos(lsp[i]); > >> > > >> > - AV_DEBUG("floor0 synth: map_size = %d; m = %d; wstep = > >> > %f\n", > >> > - vf->map_size, order, wstep); > >> > >> Which part doesn't compile? > > > > I wonder why you fight tooth and nail for such broken code snippets - > > the fact that they fail to compile proves they have not been used in > > many years. IMO getting them to compile is not worth the effort. > > Maybe if we see some more patches from you fixing broken samples you'd > have more appreciating for debug code, even if it needs a little bit > of messaging to work.
Possibly. If you look closely you will notice I scaled back considerably on removing such things already. In fact, I'm working on fixing the remaining broken ones and eventually adding a FATE configuration that ensures they remain in a working state. Patches waiting for review... That said, I don't think fixing every single one of them is worth the effort. When the debug statements reference symbols that were removed years ago, that is a sign that effort spent on fixing them might well be spent in vain... Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
