Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 191, Issue 7

[Marcus Johnson]

This is the third blank message from flac-dev, what is happening?

> On Jul 9, 2022, at 8:00 AM, flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org wrote:
> 

___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 185, Issue 1

[Marcus Johnson]

 I reached out to clarify an issue while contributing to that document.

The email I used was: v0idstar at Apple_cloud_domain dot com

Apple_cloud_domain being a reference, not the literal domain.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 149, Issue 6

[Marcus Johnson]

I see, so it's basically Exponential-golomb, but you choose the base, and
set that somewhere.

Interesting, and thanks for the explanation.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 149, Issue 5

[Marcus Johnson]

​Can you guys clarify that by Rice you don't mean unary coding, but
exponential golomb coding?

that issue has confused me before, and probably others.​
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 149, Issue 3

[Marcus Johnson]

Unless you're offering someone $$$ to implement it, this is the last place
you should ask for such support.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 148, Issue 2

[Marcus Johnson]

Oh, so you use Exponential-Golomb? I was under the impression you used old
fashioned RICE coding aka Unary.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

[flac-dev] How is the MD5 hash calculated?

[Marcus Johnson]

is it on a per subframe basis, and if so, is each frame padded if it’s not a 
multiple of 512 bits? or do I have to decode all the data, and run it over the 
decoded file at once?
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 139, Issue 1

[Marcus Johnson]

I'm running El Capitan aka Darwin 15.4, I'll test the patch in just a sec.

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:00 AM,  wrote:

> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
> flac-dev@xiph.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. [PATCH] for Darwin asm compile (lvqcl)
>2. Re: [PATCH] for Darwin asm compile (Ozkan Sezer)
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: lvqcl 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 17:40:53 +0300
> Subject: [flac-dev] [PATCH] for Darwin asm compile
> This patch should fix https://sourceforge.net/p/flac/bugs/438/
>
> I cannot test it myself because I don't have Mac OS X.
> But the fact that such patch was included in Audacity means
> that it should be OK.
>
> Or maybe it's better to ask Audacity/Macports/Fink devs for comments?
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Ozkan Sezer 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:40:53 +0300
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] [PATCH] for Darwin asm compile
> On 6/12/16, lvqcl  wrote:
> > This patch should fix https://sourceforge.net/p/flac/bugs/438/
> >
> > I cannot test it myself because I don't have Mac OS X.
> > But the fact that such patch was included in Audacity means
> > that it should be OK.
> >
> > Or maybe it's better to ask Audacity/Macports/Fink devs for comments?
>
> It compiles for i686-apple-darwin9 when applied to the current git.
> I also applied to a modified flac-1.3.0 decoder-only version, and it
> compiled and ran fine for me on Mac OS X 10.6.8.
>
> --
> O.S.
>
>
> ___
> flac-dev mailing list
> flac-dev@xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
>
>
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 131, Issue 8

[Marcus Johnson]

​How the hell did this spam get through?​
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 128, Issue 14

[Marcus Johnson]

Do you have a source on the CoreAudio quality thing? I'd be very interested
in reading more about that.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 125, Issue 3

[Marcus Johnson]

Isn't the FFmpeg FLAC encoder lossy for 24 bit content too?
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 122, Issue 2

[Marcus Johnson]

​This ticket is spam... ​
https://trac.xiph.org/ticket/2140
​​
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 116, Issue 19

[Marcus Johnson]

Why are you using such an old SDK? Your Macbook came with at least Mountain
Lion, right? I have a Retina Macbook mid 2012, and it came with ML...


On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:00 PM,  wrote:

> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
> flac-dev@xiph.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. 1.21 vs 1.3 encoding speed (Scott Brown)
>2. Re: 1.21 vs 1.3 encoding speed (lvqcl)
>3. Re: 1.21 vs 1.3 encoding speed (Scott Brown)
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Scott Brown 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:39:59 -0400
> Subject: [flac-dev] 1.21 vs 1.3 encoding speed
> Hello,
>
> I'm on a Mac and I'm noticing that encoding via the flac command line is
> significantly slower with version 1.3.0 than 1.2.1. I'm encoding a 24/96
> file to flac, both from wav and aiff and both formats are showing the same
> speed decrease when using 1.3.0.
>
> To give an idea of the speed decrease, encoding at flac level 8:
>
> 24/96 wav file
> 1.21: 61.05 seconds. ratio=0.690
> 1.3: 222.48 seconds. ratio=0.690
>
> smaller 16/44.1 wav file
> 1.21: 14.28 seconds. ratio=0.487
> 1.3: 51.21 seconds. ratio=0.487
>
> Also, 1.2.1 will not encode an aiff-c file, but 1.3.0 will. Is this change
> documented anywhere?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: lvqcl 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:54:54 +0400
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] 1.21 vs 1.3 encoding speed
> Scott Brown wrote:
>
>  I'm on a Mac and I'm noticing that encoding via the flac command line is
>> significantly slower with version 1.3.0 than 1.2.1. I'm encoding a 24/96
>> file to flac, both from wav and aiff and both formats are showing the same
>> speed decrease when using 1.3.0.
>>
>
> a) What CPU do you have? Intel or PowerPC?
>
> b) There are no official binaries for 1.3.0. How did you obtain
> your flac 1.3.0 encoder?
>
>
>
> (I suspect that your CPU was made by Intel and your encoder was built
> without NASM...)
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Scott Brown 
> To: lvqcl 
> Cc: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:32:50 -0400
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] 1.21 vs 1.3 encoding speed
> a. Intel 2.8 Ghz Core I7 (dual core, I7-4558U) in late 2013 Macbook Pro
> with Retina Display
> b. I compiled it the same way I compiled 1.2.1:
>
> ./configure -enable-static -disable-shared CFLAGS=" -isysroot
> /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.6.sdk -mmacosx-version-min=10.6"
> make
>
> Am i doing something wrong?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:54 PM, lvqcl  wrote:
>
>> Scott Brown wrote:
>>
>> > I'm on a Mac and I'm noticing that encoding via the flac command line is
>> > significantly slower with version 1.3.0 than 1.2.1. I'm encoding a 24/96
>> > file to flac, both from wav and aiff and both formats are showing the
>> same
>> > speed decrease when using 1.3.0.
>>
>> a) What CPU do you have? Intel or PowerPC?
>>
>> b) There are no official binaries for 1.3.0. How did you obtain
>> your flac 1.3.0 encoder?
>>
>>
>>
>> (I suspect that your CPU was made by Intel and your encoder was built
>> without NASM...)
>> ___
>> flac-dev mailing list
>> flac-dev@xiph.org
>> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
>>
>
>
> ___
> flac-dev mailing list
> flac-dev@xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
>
>
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 116, Issue 15

[Marcus Johnson]

I have an Intel Mac and I'd be glad to test it for you, but I'm not sure
how to use the makefile.lite build system? do I just replace the normal one
with this one? I tried ./makefile.lite but nothing happened.


On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 3:00 PM,  wrote:

> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
> flac-dev@xiph.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: PPC asm is disabled since Jan 2005 (lvqcl)
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: lvqcl 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:55:57 +0400
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] PPC asm is disabled since Jan 2005
> lvqcl wrote:
>
>  During making a patch I found that PPC asm code wasn't disabled in
>> Makefile.lite. Anybody uses it on Linux/Darwin PPC platform?
>>
>
> It seems that it is disabled on Linux PPC even for Makefile.lite build.
>
> From src/libFLAC/Makefile.lite:
>
> ifeq ($(OS),Darwin)
> SRCS_S = \
> ppc/as/lpc_asm.s
> else
> ifeq ($(PROC),i386)
> ...
>
> So, ppc/altivec asm is enabled in Makefile.lite only for Darwin OS.
> (and for all CPUs? so Makefile.lite is broken for Darwin on Intel?)
>
>
> ___
> flac-dev mailing list
> flac-dev@xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
>
>
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 103, Issue 11

[Marcus Johnson]

I posted Mac binaries a few weeks ago but nobody did anything with them, or
even acknowledged them.

Here is a DMG with a .pkg installer for Flac 1.3.0

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52358991/FLACInstaller1.3.0.dmg


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM,  wrote:

> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
> flac-dev@xiph.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Sourceforge website redirecting (Olav Sunde)
>2. Re: Sourceforge website redirecting (Martijn van Beurden)
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Olav Sunde 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:11:24 +0200
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] Sourceforge website redirecting
>  At 09:06 26.06.2013, you wrote:
>
> Olav Sunde wrote:
>
> > I just followed the redirect Ralph Giles posted about above. That works
> > as expected, but on https://xiph.org/flac/download.html the Windows
> > link point to this page:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/flac/files/flac-win/
> > with only old compiles.
>
> Thats correct. Xiph is responsible for the FLAC source code. Xiph does
> not provide binaries for Linux, Windows or Mac.
>
>
> I'd say that is rather strange when it comes to Windows and Mac. The flac
> pages at Sourceforge always had links to binaries. For Linux, many will
> compile from source. I never compile anything, be it Linux or Windows. I
> know a few that compile on Linux of course, but none on Windows or Mac.
> Source code is still quite esoteric for many.
>
>
> Xiph assumes that people on Linux are getting FLAC via their Linux
> distribution or are compiling it from soruce code themselves.
>
> If someone has a link to Windows or Mac binaries for the latest release,
> please let us know and we will update the download page. We may even
> be willing to host the binaries on the Xiph web site.
>
>
> I hope this can be arranged. John Edwards has posted on this early in
> June. I use the Windows binaries from rarewares.org.
>
>
> Hope this clears things up.
>
> Cheers,
> 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
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Martijn van Beurden 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:13:05 +0200
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] Sourceforge website redirecting
>  On 26-06-13 09:06, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>
> If someone has a link to Windows or Mac binaries for the latest release,
> please let us know and we will update the download page. We may even be
> willing to host the binaries on the Xiph web site. Hope this clears things
> up.
>
>
> There are already quite a lot of binaries out there. I've extensively
> checked (running make fullcheck in the minGW environment) and tested the
> following package, because it is bundled with the new FLAC frontend
> package. I've had no complaints so far. A direct link is probably not a
> good idea however.
>
> http://www.icer.nl/misc_stuff/flac-1.3.0-final-MSVC.zip
>
>
> Janne Hyvärinen has a compile here as well.
>
> http://www.saunalahti.fi/~cse/temp/flac-1.3.0-win32.zip
>
>
> Beside that there's a whole bunch of different compiles with for example
> the Intel compiler and minGW here:
> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=101082
>
>
> But that's all Windows, I haven't seen any Mac binaries yet.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> flac-dev mailing list
> flac-dev@xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
>
>
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 103, Issue 7

[Marcus Johnson]

Here's the patch submit message for 4GB+ windows barrier.

http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail//flac-dev/2013-March/003804.html


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:00 PM,  wrote:

> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
> flac-dev@xiph.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: (no subject) (Erik de Castro Lopo)
>2. Question from Argentina (Federico Miyara)
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Erik de Castro Lopo 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:52:38 +1000
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] (no subject)
> Janne Hyvärinen wrote:
>
> > On 10.6.2013 22:27, Marcus Johnson wrote:
> > > Also, shouldn't the changelog feature the 4GB windows fix? I remember
> > > reading about that bug fix at the start of 1.3.0, and I for one was
> > > incredibly excited about it.
> > >
> > > if nobody remembers it I can try to hunt down that patch on the mail
> list.
> > >
> >
> > IMO it should have been mentioned and I voiced my opinion about this to
> > Eric on IRC before the official announcement.
> > At least it's mentioned in the news posting on Hydrogenaudio:
> > http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=101082
>
> If some provides the required text, I'm happy to update the changelog.
>
> Erik
> --
> --
> Erik de Castro Lopo
> http://www.mega-nerd.com/
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Federico Miyara 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:13:56 -0300
> Subject: [flac-dev] Question from Argentina
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> I am new to this mailing list. I am with the National University of
> Rosario, Argentina, and I am writing a book on software-based acoustical
> measurements, which includes a chapter on FLAC for archival and streaming
> purposes from an remote embedded system including a sensor.
>
> I would like to ask why the seekpoint information in the seek table
> metadata block reserves 64 bit for the number of first sample in target
> frame and for the offset of the first byte of target frame.
>
> It seems to me a lot, since 2^64 = 1.84e+19, i.e., far more samples and
> bytes than can be expected in any file... ever.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Federico Miyara
>
>
>
> ___
> flac-dev mailing list
> flac-dev@xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
>
>
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

[flac-dev] (no subject)

[Marcus Johnson]

Also, shouldn't the changelog feature the 4GB windows fix? I remember
reading about that bug fix at the start of 1.3.0, and I for one was
incredibly excited about it.

if nobody remembers it I can try to hunt down that patch on the mail list.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

[flac-dev] (no subject)

[Marcus Johnson]

Are there precompiled binaries for OS X? if not I could provide them.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 102, Issue 18

[Marcus Johnson]

Are we gonna get a new beta, or will it just be 1.3 release, also how long
until the update?


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:00 PM,  wrote:

> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
> flac-dev@xiph.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: FLAC currently won't compile for Android [bisected]
>   (Janne Hyv?rinen)
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Janne Hyvärinen" 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 13:44:17 +0300
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] FLAC currently won't compile for Android [bisected]
> On 22.5.2013 17:03, Felix Homann wrote:
>
>> Sorry that it took so long to reply. As mentioned in an earlier mail my
>> first bisect session wasn't accurate. I've done a new one:
>>
>>
>>
> Here's my patch suggestion but I'm no Android guy.
>
>
> ___
> flac-dev mailing list
> flac-dev@xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
>
>
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 102, Issue 7

[Marcus Johnson]

rks.
>
> I'll write a test program tomorrow to try the fflush+_lseeki64 approach.
>
> Another solution - although a bit ugly - might be to disable buffering on
> Windows using setvbuf.
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 16:34:04 -0700
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] Bug fix and compatibility patches for 1.3.0pre4
> Robert Kausch wrote:
>
>> MSDN says "The pos value is stored in an internal format and is intended
>> for use only by *fgetpos* and *fsetpos*."
>> (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-**us/library/70hdhh4t%28v=vs.80%**29.aspx<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/70hdhh4t%28v=vs.80%29.aspx>),
>> so
>> I don't think it's a good idea to use it this way even if tests
>> suggested it works.
>>
>
> FWIW, I verified that this is the approach used by mingw32 to implement
> fseeko/ftello.
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Janne Hyvärinen" 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 07:42:34 +0300
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] Bug fix and compatibility patches for 1.3.0pre4
> On 6.5.2013 0:43, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
>
>> Janne Hyvärinen wrote:
>>
>>> You people do realize these hacks would only be required for 10+ year
>>> old obsolete compilers?
>>>
>> No, they're required for easy distribution on 12 year old OSes (which,
>> last I saw, make up almost 40% of Firefox's desktop userbase, and likely
>> will continue to for some time).
>>
>>
> What kind of nonsense is this? You should know that the last Microsoft
> compiler to create dynamically linked code that used msvcrt.dll was Visual
> Studio 6.0 from 1998.
>
> Oldest Visual Studio supported by FLAC 1.3 is Visual Studio 2005. FLAC is
> also configured to be compiled with static linking, so no external
> dependencies hinder its function.
>
> If you take a look at the following MSDN pages for Visual Studio 2005, you
> will see that _fseeki64 and _ftelli64 are supported all the way back to
> Windows 95:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-**us/library/75yw9bf3%28v=vs.80%**29.aspx<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/75yw9bf3%28v=vs.80%29.aspx>and
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-**US/library/0ys3hc0b%28v=vs.80%**29.aspx<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/0ys3hc0b%28v=vs.80%29.aspx>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Ralph Giles 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 11:20:15 -0700
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] (no subject)
> On 13-05-02 7:37 PM, Marcus Johnson wrote:
> > Here's the Flac.xcodeproj, compressed with 7-zip as it's just a folder
> > and can't be transmitted without being compressed, check to see if it
> > works on your computers, and hopefully everything works.
>
> .7z isn't a normal MacOS tool. Could you please send a tar.gz or .zip
> instead?
>
>  -r
>
>
>
> ___
> flac-dev mailing list
> flac-dev@xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
>
>
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

[flac-dev] (no subject)

[Marcus Johnson]

Here's the Flac.xcodeproj, compressed with 7-zip as it's just a folder and
can't be transmitted without being compressed, check to see if it works on
your computers, and hopefully everything works.


flac.xcodeproj.7z
Description: Binary data
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 102, Issue 2

[Marcus Johnson]

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:00 PM,  wrote:

>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3428216/adding-system-header-search-path-to-xcode


Thanks guys, I got the header paths to show up, now Xcode's ust complaining
about missing parenthesis. I'm gonna try to "fix" the issue, then test in
Xcode and through terminal and see if the issue can be fixed without
messing up the other.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

[flac-dev] (no subject)

[Marcus Johnson]

One last thing, Xcode complains about the .nasm files when compiling for
x64, I don't know too much about assembly, can x86 assembly be compiled on
x64 at all?
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

[flac-dev] (no subject)

[Marcus Johnson]

I've got the Xcode project done, I'm having trouble finding the proper
format for the header search path, and do I need to include the tests in
the xcodeproj?
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 101, Issue 28

[Marcus Johnson]

Well, I'm bored, and I hope I'm not getting in the way of anyone, but I was
like hell might as well try to make a new Xcode project, although I am
using 10.8 with the latest xcode, so I'd have to manually remove that, but
there is one serious concern, and that's that header files are being called
from 1 directory up from where they are, for example:

"share/compat.h" which Xcode needs to be listed as "include/share/compat.h"
and I really don't want to be editing these paths, because god only knows
what it'll break, any suggestions?


On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:46 PM,  wrote:

> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
> flac-dev@xiph.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: flac-dev Digest, Vol 101, Issue 27 (Marcus Johnson)
>2. Re: flac-dev Digest, Vol 101, Issue 27 (Martijn van Beurden)
>3. Re: What is in directory flac.pbproj? (Brian Willoughby)
>4. README (was flac-dev Digest, Vol 101, Issue 27) (Ulrich Klauer)
>5. Re: Pre-release 1.3.0pre4 (hopefully the last)
>   (Martijn van Beurden)
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Marcus Johnson 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:45:31 -0400
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 101, Issue 27
> I'd love to fix the .Xcodeproj (which is what they're called now) but I
> don't have a clue how to, if I were to figure it out would you guys accept
> it, or is it not worth my time?
>
> btw, someone on Windows should get the visual studio files working, it
> always complains about not finding nasm.exe.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:00 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
>> flac-dev@xiph.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: [PATCH] Remaining Debian delta (Erik de Castro Lopo)
>>2. What is in directory flac.pbproj? (Erik de Castro Lopo)
>>3. Re: What is in directory flac.pbproj? (Ulrich Klauer)
>>4. Re: What is in directory flac.pbproj? (Erik de Castro Lopo)
>>5. Re: What is in directory flac.pbproj? (Ralph Giles)
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Erik de Castro Lopo 
>> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
>> Cc:
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:00:38 +1000
>> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] [PATCH] Remaining Debian delta
>> Ulrich Klauer wrote:
>>
>> > here are two patches from the Debian flac package that haven't found
>> > their way into 1.3.0 yet. The first one is important because it fixes
>> > a user-visible bug (albeit only affecting
>> > --apply-replaygain-which-is-not-lossless).
>> >
>> > See the commit messages for the source of the patches, I only did the
>> > rebasing (which was trivial).
>>
>> Thanks Ulrich. Applied.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Erik
>> --
>> --
>> Erik de Castro Lopo
>> http://www.mega-nerd.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Erik de Castro Lopo 
>> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
>> Cc:
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:19:37 +1000
>> Subject: [flac-dev] What is in directory flac.pbproj?
>> Hi all,
>>
>> There is a bunch of seemingly windows related stuff in the top level
>> directory flac.pbproj which has not been touched since 2009.
>>
>> If it hasn't been touched, its almost certainly broken and redundant.
>> Can I simply delete it?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Erik
>> --
>> --
>> Erik de Castro Lopo
>> http://www.mega-nerd.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> -- For

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 101, Issue 27

[Marcus Johnson]

I'd love to fix the .Xcodeproj (which is what they're called now) but I
don't have a clue how to, if I were to figure it out would you guys accept
it, or is it not worth my time?

btw, someone on Windows should get the visual studio files working, it
always complains about not finding nasm.exe.


On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:00 PM,  wrote:

> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
> flac-dev@xiph.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: [PATCH] Remaining Debian delta (Erik de Castro Lopo)
>2. What is in directory flac.pbproj? (Erik de Castro Lopo)
>3. Re: What is in directory flac.pbproj? (Ulrich Klauer)
>4. Re: What is in directory flac.pbproj? (Erik de Castro Lopo)
>5. Re: What is in directory flac.pbproj? (Ralph Giles)
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Erik de Castro Lopo 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:00:38 +1000
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] [PATCH] Remaining Debian delta
> Ulrich Klauer wrote:
>
> > here are two patches from the Debian flac package that haven't found
> > their way into 1.3.0 yet. The first one is important because it fixes
> > a user-visible bug (albeit only affecting
> > --apply-replaygain-which-is-not-lossless).
> >
> > See the commit messages for the source of the patches, I only did the
> > rebasing (which was trivial).
>
> Thanks Ulrich. Applied.
>
> Cheers,
> Erik
> --
> --
> Erik de Castro Lopo
> http://www.mega-nerd.com/
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Erik de Castro Lopo 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:19:37 +1000
> Subject: [flac-dev] What is in directory flac.pbproj?
> Hi all,
>
> There is a bunch of seemingly windows related stuff in the top level
> directory flac.pbproj which has not been touched since 2009.
>
> If it hasn't been touched, its almost certainly broken and redundant.
> Can I simply delete it?
>
> Cheers,
> Erik
> --
> --
> Erik de Castro Lopo
> http://www.mega-nerd.com/
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Ulrich Klauer 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:35:17 +0200
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] What is in directory flac.pbproj?
> Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>
>  There is a bunch of seemingly windows related stuff in the top level
>> directory flac.pbproj which has not been touched since 2009.
>>
>
> Apparently, it is a Project Builder project, from NeXTSTEP/MacOS X.
> Wikipedia says it "was" an IDE and "superseded by Xcode, as of Mac OS X
> 10.3 Panther".
>
> Ulrich
>
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Erik de Castro Lopo 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 01:20:48 +1000
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] What is in directory flac.pbproj?
> Ulrich Klauer wrote:
>
> > Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> >
> > > There is a bunch of seemingly windows related stuff in the top level
> > > directory flac.pbproj which has not been touched since 2009.
> >
> > Apparently, it is a Project Builder project, from NeXTSTEP/MacOS X.
> > Wikipedia says it "was" an IDE and "superseded by Xcode, as of Mac OS
> > X 10.3 Panther".
>
> I should junk it then. Whatever is there now doesn't work. If someone
> wants to resurrect it they can always pull it out of git.
>
> Cheers,
> Erik
> --
> --
> Erik de Castro Lopo
> http://www.mega-nerd.com/
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Ralph Giles 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:06:09 -0700
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] What is in directory flac.pbproj?
> On 13-04-30 8:20 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>
> > I should junk it then. Whatever is there now doesn't work. If someone
> > wants to resurrect it they can always pull it out of git.
>
> Yes, that's fine. XCode 4.6.2 binds the extension, but can't open the
> project files, saying they're too old, so these aren't useful to current
> developers.
>
>  -r
>
>
>
> ___
> flac-dev mailing list
> flac-dev@xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
>
>
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 101, Issue 24

[Marcus Johnson]

All tests passed, all good on OS X with make -j8 -oo


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Marcus Johnson
wrote:

> Compiling on OS X 10.8 x86_64 as we speak.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:00 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
>> flac-dev@xiph.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Pre-release 1.3.0pre4 (hopefully the last) (Erik de Castro Lopo)
>>2. Re: Pre-release 1.3.0pre4 (hopefully the last) (Janne Hyv?rinen)
>>3. Re: Pre-release 1.3.0pre4 (hopefully the last) (LRN)
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Erik de Castro Lopo 
>> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
>> Cc:
>> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:38:45 +1000
>> Subject: [flac-dev] Pre-release 1.3.0pre4 (hopefully the last)
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have tagged 1.3.0pre4 in git and provided a tarball here:
>>
>> http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/flac/beta/flac-1.3.0pre4.tar.xz
>>
>> I have built and tested the git tree on:
>>
>> linux-x86_64
>> openbsd5-i386
>> freebsd5-i386
>>
>> as well as successfully cross compiling from Linux to 32 and 64 bit
>> MinGW.
>>
>> As far as I am concerned, the only thing left to do for this release
>> is to update the version numbers and dates through out.
>>
>> I will still accept bug fixes for this release, but I am no longer
>> accepting feature updates.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Erik
>> --
>> --
>> Erik de Castro Lopo
>> http://www.mega-nerd.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: "Janne Hyvärinen" 
>> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
>> Cc:
>> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:28:55 +0300
>> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] Pre-release 1.3.0pre4 (hopefully the last)
>> I uploaded Windows binaries for willing testers at
>> http://www.saunalahti.fi/~cse/**temp/flac-1.3pre4-win32.zip<http://www.saunalahti.fi/~cse/temp/flac-1.3pre4-win32.zip>.
>> I have been using the git version for my own encodes for a while now
>> without any issues.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: LRN 
>> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
>> Cc:
>> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:23:07 +0400
>> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] Pre-release 1.3.0pre4 (hopefully the last)
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 28.04.2013 13:38, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>> > I have tagged 1.3.0pre4 in git and provided a tarball here:
>> >
>> > http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/flac/beta/flac-1.3.0pre4.tar.xz
>> >
>> > I have built and tested the git tree on:
>> >
>> > linux-x86_64 openbsd5-i386 freebsd5-i386
>> >
>> i686-w64-mingw32 - builds correctly, passes all tests (NT 6.1.7601).
>>
>> - --
>> O< ascii ribbon - stop html email! - www.asciiribbon.org
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRfQaZAAoJEOs4Jb6SI2CwbXoH+gMvKvgKQBnubJixatT/KXD3
>> F9DHtZ9UwQ/u+JiPrTF+vd3PdSB1gDvfmhlLsT1NXNdzSUVk0HvVEyMCFNT24xPa
>> GHLpsPIwpE2zWgPBfLDVfatTcyLnFBXn8PNIWjxSgaTxJLdHjYtGBY/JaYHf6Hss
>> 6c2/qhF4w8UZC9hqX9LVd5UExbOtkdUPb82aS9ShhB65fcKgLTJvKNMtpHA4OPwx
>> Ud6j5/tRGksbOBvqcK28dqH+80nY/xrBbG5Z8iqek6vTHyc5HhVMaGOlIJIigGSb
>> W6wKMRus1SzX9pFwbJltnNIZKHVmn/sCPZ7i7suspKQqrEi4e2lcHxbCW12XCC0=
>> =vjiJ
>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>>
>>
>> ___
>> flac-dev mailing list
>> flac-dev@xiph.org
>> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
>>
>>
>
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 101, Issue 24

[Marcus Johnson]

Compiling on OS X 10.8 x86_64 as we speak.


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:00 PM,  wrote:

> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
> flac-dev@xiph.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Pre-release 1.3.0pre4 (hopefully the last) (Erik de Castro Lopo)
>2. Re: Pre-release 1.3.0pre4 (hopefully the last) (Janne Hyv?rinen)
>3. Re: Pre-release 1.3.0pre4 (hopefully the last) (LRN)
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Erik de Castro Lopo 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:38:45 +1000
> Subject: [flac-dev] Pre-release 1.3.0pre4 (hopefully the last)
> Hi all,
>
> I have tagged 1.3.0pre4 in git and provided a tarball here:
>
> http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/flac/beta/flac-1.3.0pre4.tar.xz
>
> I have built and tested the git tree on:
>
> linux-x86_64
> openbsd5-i386
> freebsd5-i386
>
> as well as successfully cross compiling from Linux to 32 and 64 bit
> MinGW.
>
> As far as I am concerned, the only thing left to do for this release
> is to update the version numbers and dates through out.
>
> I will still accept bug fixes for this release, but I am no longer
> accepting feature updates.
>
> Cheers,
> Erik
> --
> --
> Erik de Castro Lopo
> http://www.mega-nerd.com/
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Janne Hyvärinen" 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:28:55 +0300
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] Pre-release 1.3.0pre4 (hopefully the last)
> I uploaded Windows binaries for willing testers at
> http://www.saunalahti.fi/~cse/**temp/flac-1.3pre4-win32.zip.
> I have been using the git version for my own encodes for a while now
> without any issues.
>
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: LRN 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:23:07 +0400
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] Pre-release 1.3.0pre4 (hopefully the last)
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 28.04.2013 13:38, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> > I have tagged 1.3.0pre4 in git and provided a tarball here:
> >
> > http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/flac/beta/flac-1.3.0pre4.tar.xz
> >
> > I have built and tested the git tree on:
> >
> > linux-x86_64 openbsd5-i386 freebsd5-i386
> >
> i686-w64-mingw32 - builds correctly, passes all tests (NT 6.1.7601).
>
> - --
> O< ascii ribbon - stop html email! - www.asciiribbon.org
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRfQaZAAoJEOs4Jb6SI2CwbXoH+gMvKvgKQBnubJixatT/KXD3
> F9DHtZ9UwQ/u+JiPrTF+vd3PdSB1gDvfmhlLsT1NXNdzSUVk0HvVEyMCFNT24xPa
> GHLpsPIwpE2zWgPBfLDVfatTcyLnFBXn8PNIWjxSgaTxJLdHjYtGBY/JaYHf6Hss
> 6c2/qhF4w8UZC9hqX9LVd5UExbOtkdUPb82aS9ShhB65fcKgLTJvKNMtpHA4OPwx
> Ud6j5/tRGksbOBvqcK28dqH+80nY/xrBbG5Z8iqek6vTHyc5HhVMaGOlIJIigGSb
> W6wKMRus1SzX9pFwbJltnNIZKHVmn/sCPZ7i7suspKQqrEi4e2lcHxbCW12XCC0=
> =vjiJ
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
> ___
> flac-dev mailing list
> flac-dev@xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
>
>
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

[flac-dev] External decoders?

[Marcus Johnson]

Should we start thinking about including APE, ALAC, etc decoders? it'd make
encoding to flac a lot easier, and quicker, just wondering. I mean if
nothing else, FFmpeg has free decoders, and Apple released their official
ALAC codec awhile back.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 101, Issue 11

[Marcus Johnson]

Okay, I was thinking it may have been something to do with the header, but
I wasn't sure how to verify that. thanks guys.


On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:00 PM,  wrote:

> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
> flac-dev@xiph.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Flac 1.3.0pre3 NOT lossless. (Marcus Johnson)
>2. FLAC 1.3.0pre3 NOT lossless (Marcus Johnson)
>3. Re: FLAC 1.3.0pre3 NOT lossless (Martijn van Beurden)
>    4. Re: FLAC 1.3.0pre3 NOT lossless (Christoph Terasa)
>5. flac 1.3.0 NOT lossless (Marcus Johnson)
>6. Re: flac 1.3.0 NOT lossless (Martijn van Beurden)
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Marcus Johnson 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:49:41 -0400
> Subject: [flac-dev] Flac 1.3.0pre3 NOT lossless.
> original wav is 24 bit, 8 channel, size is 41.7MB
> MD5: 8d38f7dec1dbd9b4645ad6978e0a8d41
>
> wav encoded to flac with -8 -e -p, VERY fast, 1MB in size.
> MD5: 315dce07d6a30b8060d3a80d960e3a13
>
> flac file decoded back to wav, 41.7MB MD5: 8069fc2d6cf23d08da8019e41cfbd80d
>
> Flac compiled with make -j8 -o3, on Mac OS X 10.8.3
>
> passed all tests. :O
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Marcus Johnson 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:54:28 -0400
> Subject: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.0pre3 NOT lossless
> the audio was also 192,000khz sample rate, forgot to mention that, adn
> here are the audio files, the original, the flac, and the decoded from flac.
>
> the archive is 7zip, Idk where to upload it so I'll just send it to
> depositfiles.
>
> http://depositfiles.com/files/90anghniw
>
>
>
>
> ------ Forwarded message --
> From: Martijn van Beurden 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:03:47 +0200
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.0pre3 NOT lossless
> On 15-04-13 17:54, Marcus Johnson wrote:
>
>> the audio was also 192,000khz sample rate, forgot to mention that, adn
>> here are the audio files, the original, the flac, and the decoded from flac.
>>
>> the archive is 7zip, Idk where to upload it so I'll just send it to
>> depositfiles.
>>
>
> As far as I can see, these audio files are lossless and the WAV files are
> identical when regarding only audio data. When I open both in Audacity and
> invert one of them, the channels cancel each other exactly, so the audio
> data must be the same.
>
> The checksums don't have to match because WAV is a complicated standard
> and FLAC might be writing the file a little different (see for example
> http://xiph.org/flac/faq.html#**tools__two_bytes_short<http://xiph.org/flac/faq.html#tools__two_bytes_short>)
> FLAC compresses the audio data losslessly, not the WAV file itself, that's
> why simple MD5-summing doesn't cut it.
>
> The FLAC file is small and encoding is very fast because most of the file
> is silence, which is very easy to encode.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Christoph Terasa 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:44:31 +0200
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.0pre3 NOT lossless
> On 4/15/2013 6:03 PM, Martijn van Beurden wrote:
>
>> On 15-04-13 17:54, Marcus Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> the audio was also 192,000khz sample rate, forgot to mention that, adn
>>> here are the audio files, the original, the flac, and the decoded from
>>> flac.
>>>
>>> the archive is 7zip, Idk where to upload it so I'll just send it to
>>> depositfiles.
>>>
>> As far as I can see, these audio files are lossless and the WAV files
>> are identical when regarding only audio data. When I open both in
>> Audacity and invert one of them, the channels cancel each other exactly,
>> so the audio data must be the same.
>>
>
> Bit-comparing both WAV streams and the FLAC stream (I did it with
> foobar2000) does also show that the decoded data is the same.
>
> Christoph
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Marcus Johnson 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:47:20 -0400
> Subject: [flac-dev] flac 1.3.0 NOT lossless
> Also, FFmpeg enc

[flac-dev] flac 1.3.0 NOT lossless

[Marcus Johnson]

Also, FFmpeg encodes the audio to only 3/4th the size, that's kinda strange.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

[flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.0pre3 NOT lossless

[Marcus Johnson]

the audio was also 192,000khz sample rate, forgot to mention that, adn here
are the audio files, the original, the flac, and the decoded from flac.

the archive is 7zip, Idk where to upload it so I'll just send it to
depositfiles.

http://depositfiles.com/files/90anghniw
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

[flac-dev] Flac 1.3.0pre3 NOT lossless.

[Marcus Johnson]

original wav is 24 bit, 8 channel, size is 41.7MB
MD5: 8d38f7dec1dbd9b4645ad6978e0a8d41

wav encoded to flac with -8 -e -p, VERY fast, 1MB in size.
MD5: 315dce07d6a30b8060d3a80d960e3a13

flac file decoded back to wav, 41.7MB MD5: 8069fc2d6cf23d08da8019e41cfbd80d

Flac compiled with make -j8 -o3, on Mac OS X 10.8.3

passed all tests. :O
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 100, Issue 52

[Marcus Johnson]

I'll try it, thanks. also do you know how to cross compile with MinGW? I'm
trying on my Mac, because Visual Studio 2012 doesn't like the SLN, but it's
not really working. :/


On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM,  wrote:

> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
> flac-dev@xiph.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. FLAC deletes file right after encoding bug. (Marcus Johnson)
>2. Re: FLAC deletes file right after encoding bug. (Janne Hyv?rinen)
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Marcus Johnson 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:46:33 -0400
> Subject: [flac-dev] FLAC deletes file right after encoding bug.
> I'm using flac 1.3.0pre2 on Windows 8 (not sure which git version, the exe
> was on the mailing list a few days ago) and right after I encode a 24 bit
> ~2 hour long flac file, to flac with -8 -e -p -V it creats a temp file
> called something like .flac`enc blah blah blah, it will finish making the
> file, verify it, then start encoding from the source file to the end file
> again after promptly deleting the temp file, looping the encoding seemingly
> for infinity (I always cancel it when I realize that it deleted the file.)
>
> What the hell?
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Janne Hyvärinen" 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:52:59 +0200
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] FLAC deletes file right after encoding bug.
>
> On 24.3.2013 19:46, Marcus Johnson wrote:
>
>> I'm using flac 1.3.0pre2 on Windows 8 (not sure which git version, the
>> exe was on the mailing list a few days ago) and right after I encode a 24
>> bit ~2 hour long flac file, to flac with -8 -e -p -V it creats a temp file
>> called something like .flac`enc blah blah blah, it will finish making the
>> file, verify it, then start encoding from the source file to the end file
>> again after promptly deleting the temp file, looping the encoding seemingly
>> for infinity (I always cancel it when I realize that it deleted the file.)
>>
>> What the hell?
>>
>>
> I don't remember seeing anything else linked than my compile that
> contained first early version of Unicode filename support code in it. The
> first implementation was bugged and has since been revised. Perhaps you
> could redownload 
> http://www.saunalahti.fi/~cse/**temp/flac-1.3pre2-mod.zip<http://www.saunalahti.fi/~cse/temp/flac-1.3pre2-mod.zip>and
>  give it a try (it was updated on March 19).
>
>
>
> ___
> flac-dev mailing list
> flac-dev@xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
>
>
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

[flac-dev] FLAC deletes file right after encoding bug.

[Marcus Johnson]

I'm using flac 1.3.0pre2 on Windows 8 (not sure which git version, the exe
was on the mailing list a few days ago) and right after I encode a 24 bit
~2 hour long flac file, to flac with -8 -e -p -V it creats a temp file
called something like .flac`enc blah blah blah, it will finish making the
file, verify it, then start encoding from the source file to the end file
again after promptly deleting the temp file, looping the encoding seemingly
for infinity (I always cancel it when I realize that it deleted the file.)

What the hell?
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

[flac-dev] flac won't compile on Mac.

[Marcus Johnson]

I figured out the problem, my libtool was messed up.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 100, Issue 42

[Marcus Johnson]

"Aren't Windows users accustomed to this feature being missing anyway?"

I use Mac mostly now, but when I used Windows, now and then I always
expected the wildcard to work, it just worked on most things so it was
actually a bit of a pain in the ass when it didn't.


On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:35 AM,  wrote:

> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
> flac-dev@xiph.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: MSVC project updates (Erik de Castro Lopo)
>2. Re: Patch to add Unicode filename support for win32 flac (JonY)
>3. Re: Patch to add Unicode filename support for win32 flac
>   (Erik de Castro Lopo)
>4. Re: Patch to add Unicode filename support for win32 flac (LRN)
>5. Re: Patch to add Unicode filename support for win32 flac (LRN)
>6. Re: Patch to add Unicode filename support for win32 flac
>   (Brian Willoughby)
>7. Re: Patch to add Unicode filename support for win32 flac
>   (Erik de Castro Lopo)
>8. Re: Patch to add Unicode filename support for win32 flac (JonY)
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Erik de Castro Lopo 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:29:22 +1100
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] MSVC project updates
> Janne Hyvärinen wrote:
>
> > One more set of MSVC project updates. Changed ogg_static.lib to
> > libogg_static.lib as that's the name latest version uses. Removed MSVC
> > 6.0 related parts from README and tweaked info there to be more
> > up-to-date. Also changed nasmw.exe into nasm.exe as nasmw.exe has been
> > long gone.
> > LibFLAC_dynamic was complaining in debug mode about conflicts with
> > libcmt, I excluded it from the project there as I saw no other way to
> > solve the problem.
>
> Applied. Thanks.
>
> Erik
> --
> --
> Erik de Castro Lopo
> http://www.mega-nerd.com/
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: JonY <10wa...@gmail.com>
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:10:44 +0800
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] Patch to add Unicode filename support for win32
> flac
> On 3/17/2013 23:01, LRN wrote:
> >> All those ifdefs will at least be confined rather than spread out
> >> through the code.
> > I did it plibc-style:
> >
> > in compat.h:
> > #if defined(_WIN32)
> > #define FOPEN grabbag__fopen_utf8_wrapper
> > #else
> > #define FOPEN fopen
> > #endif
> >
> > in grabbag:
> > #if defined(_WIN32)
> >  > as fopen, but does utf8->utf16 conversion internally, then calls wfopen>
> > #endif
> >
> > and replace "fopen" with "FOPEN" everywhere else.
>
> Don't do that, it leaks into the system headers and breaks mingw if
> FLAC_USE_FOPEN_UTF8 is defined.
>
> Call the wrappers directly instead of using a macro.
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Erik de Castro Lopo 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 09:37:56 +1100
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] Patch to add Unicode filename support for win32
> flac
> JonY wrote:
>
> > On 3/17/2013 23:01, LRN wrote:
> > >> All those ifdefs will at least be confined rather than spread out
> > >> through the code.
> > > I did it plibc-style:
> > >
> > > in compat.h:
> > > #if defined(_WIN32)
> > > #define FOPEN grabbag__fopen_utf8_wrapper
> > > #else
> > > #define FOPEN fopen
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > in grabbag:
> > > #if defined(_WIN32)
> > >  > > as fopen, but does utf8->utf16 conversion internally, then calls
> wfopen>
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > and replace "fopen" with "FOPEN" everywhere else.
> >
> > Don't do that, it leaks into the system headers and breaks mingw if
> > FLAC_USE_FOPEN_UTF8 is defined.
> >
> > Call the wrappers directly instead of using a macro.
>
> +1
>
> Yep, I prefer not to have too much #ifdef hackery.
>
> In my recent replacement of all the sprintf/_snprintf stuff, I relaced all
> the
> calls with a call to flac_snprintf() and localised #ifdef hackery to the
> implementation of that function.
>
> >From a patch cleanliness POV, I like to see the new functionality added in
> one patch and a separate patch to change all the old function usage to the
> new function usage. For example, in commit 06af237c I added the new
> flac_snprintf() function and in commit 3c84f9e8 I replaced all the old
> calls to sprintf/_snprintf.
>
> Cheers,
> Erik
> --
> --
> Erik de Castro Lopo
> http://www.mega-nerd.com/
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: LRN 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:55:07 +0400
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] P

[flac-dev] (no subject)

[Marcus Johnson]

Does FLAC support 24 bit? I remember reading about people updating ffmpeg
for 24 bit support so I'm not really sure what's going on.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] flac-dev Digest, Vol 100, Issue 36

[Marcus Johnson]

I don't think you guys should worry too much about messing up old decoders,
but no matter what you choose to do FLAC MUST REMAIN LOSSLESS.


On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:06 PM,  wrote:

> Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to
> flac-dev@xiph.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> flac-dev-requ...@xiph.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> flac-dev-ow...@xiph.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of flac-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Higher compression modes from Flake (Declan Kelly)
>2. Re: Higher compression modes from Flake (Martijn van Beurden)
>3. Re: Higher compression modes from Flake (Marko Uibo)
>4. Re: Higher compression modes from Flake (Martijn van Beurden)
>5. Re: Higher compression modes from Flake (Declan Kelly)
>6. Re: Higher compression modes from Flake (Declan Kelly)
>7. Re: flac 1.3.0pre2 pre-release (Erik de Castro Lopo)
>8. Re: Higher compression modes from Flake (Martijn van Beurden)
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Declan Kelly 
> To: FLAC dev 
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:02:35 +
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] Higher compression modes from Flake
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:06:51PM -0400, ben...@winamp.com wrote:
> >
> > Flake is a completely independent codebase.  When I used it years ago, I
> > remember it being not only better compression but significantly faster as
> > well.  I believe some of the techniques used in libflake were added to
> > libFLAC in 1.1.4.  However, some of the improved compression in flake was
> > due to options that are outside the FLAC 'subset', such as larger
> > blocksize, greater number of prediction coefficients, and higher-order
> > Rice codes.
>
> When I tested flake, it was almost shockingly fast (compared to what I
> was used to with FLAC) but the tightest compression options didn't
> produce .flac files that could play on every playback device and/or
> software that I tested.
>
> It is a shame that development has stopped.
>
> The next official release of the FLAC command line should really have a
> "-9" option for absolute maxed-out big-memory CPU-burning compression.
> Most general purpose compression tools have "-9" as the tightest option
> for compression.
>
> --
> -Dec.
> ---
>(no microsoft products were used to create this message)
> "Mosaic is going to be on every computer in the world." - Marc Andreessen,
> 1994
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Martijn van Beurden 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:12:14 +0100
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] Higher compression modes from Flake
> On 14-03-13 20:02, Declan Kelly wrote:
>
>> The next official release of the FLAC command line should really have a
>> "-9" option for absolute maxed-out big-memory CPU-burning compression.
>>
>
> No. If you want such things, try TAK, OptimFROG, Monkey's Audio or even
> LA, you'll lose hardware compatibility anyway and they do much better than
> FLAC will with a -9 option.  FLAC 1.0 had a -9 option and it was removed
> with a good reason: almost no gain with added decoding complexity.
>
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Marko Uibo 
> To: flac-dev@xiph.org
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:16:37 +0200
> Subject: Re: [flac-dev] Higher compression modes from Flake
> Ühel kenal päeval (neljapäev, 14. märts 2013 19:02:35) kirjutas Declan
> Kelly:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:06:51PM -0400, ben...@winamp.com wrote:
> > > Flake is a completely independent codebase.  When I used it years ago,
> I
> > > remember it being not only better compression but significantly faster
> as
> > > well.  I believe some of the techniques used in libflake were added to
> > > libFLAC in 1.1.4.  However, some of the improved compression in flake
> was
> > > due to options that are outside the FLAC 'subset', such as larger
> > > blocksize, greater number of prediction coefficients, and higher-order
> > > Rice codes.
> >
> > When I tested flake, it was almost shockingly fast (compared to what I
> > was used to with FLAC) but the tightest compression options didn't
> > produce .flac files that could play on every playback device and/or
> > software that I tested.
> >
> > It is a shame that development has stopped.
> >
> > The next official release of the FLAC command line should really have a
> > "-9" option for absolute maxed-out big-memory CPU-burning compression.
> > Most general purpose compression tools have "-9" as the tightest option
> > for compression.
>
> Flake higher compression levels make non-subset files. Computer are fast
> today
> and Flake more complex compression don't take very much time anymore. Other
> thing is that lossless compression can't be very much smaller. One
> possibility
> is t

[flac-dev] Flac compression levels?

[Marcus Johnson]

"Using FLAC binary : /Users/Marcus/flac/test/../src/flac/flac
Original file size   441044 bytes.
Compression level 1, file size   421393 bytes.
Compression level 2, file size   421393 bytes.
Compression level 3, file size   373613 bytes.
Compression level 4, file size   369517 bytes.
Compression level 5, file size   369517 bytes.
Compression level 6, file size   369517 bytes.
Compression level 7, file size   369517 bytes.
Compression level 8, file size   366411 bytes.

"

So, basically compression levels 1 & 2 result in the same file size, 4-7
also result in the same file size, now is it just a coincidence,
considering the test files are small, or should the compression levels be
rewritten, to something like compression level 1, 2, and 3
(not corresponding to the current one two and three ofc.)
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

[flac-dev] 2GB limit?

[Marcus Johnson]

Has the 2/4GB limit been fixed?
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

[flac-dev] (no subject)

[Marcus Johnson]

Will you guys ever shut down or start using the Sourceforge page? It's
pretty confusing for newbz.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev