Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Dave Yeo wrote:

> The Oregon State U, Open Source Lab mirror is still missing 1.3.2

downloads.xiph.org (actually ftp.osuosl.org) is more than one machine.
Some of them have been updated, others haven't. Will chase it.

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

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Ozkan Sezer wrote:

> Also, the xiph downloads page https://xiph.org/downloads/ still lists
> 1.3.1 for flac download.

Thats a different issue that I'm still chasing.

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

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Ozkan Sezer]

On 1/3/17, Dave Yeo  wrote:
> On 01/02/17 11:43 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>> Please let me know if any download.xiph.org/flac/ site is missing the
>> 1.3.2 files.
>
> The Oregon State U, Open Source Lab mirror is still missing 1.3.2
> Dave

Also, the xiph downloads page https://xiph.org/downloads/ still lists
1.3.1 for flac download.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Dave Yeo]

On 01/02/17 11:43 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

Please let me know if any download.xiph.org/flac/ site is missing the
1.3.2 files.


The Oregon State U, Open Source Lab mirror is still missing 1.3.2
Dave
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Declan Kelly wrote:

> 
> The official website doesn't link to the SourceForge project, which
> seems to be the only place that's hosting the 1.3.2 files.

There was an issue with the osul.org mirrors but it should be fixed now.

Please let me know if any download.xiph.org/flac/ site is missing the
1.3.2 files.

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

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Declan Kelly]

On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 01:23:20PM +1100, mle...@mega-nerd.com wrote:
> 
> The latest version of FLAC has been releases. See:
> 
> https://xiph.org/flac/index.html

The official website doesn't link to the SourceForge project, which
seems to be the only place that's hosting the 1.3.2 files.

As long as the xiph.org download site is still out of date, the official
website shouldn't be pointing to it.


> The source tarball is also available at:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/flac/files/flac-src/
> 
> and similarly the Windows binaries at:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/flac/files/flac-win/

-- 
-Dec.
---
"Mosaic is going to be on every computer in the world." - Marc Andreessen, 1994
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[lvqcl.mail]

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:


Janne Hyvärinen wrote:


That shouldn't matter.


I realise that, but I wanted a better idea about how many people this
is like to affect. If you were on Windows XP on some old processor this
would probably not affect many people, but since you are on Windows 10
with a Core i7 thats a different matter.


It's a bug in MSVC-specific part of code. So it will affect programmers
that use MSVC to build FLAC/libFLAC, and their users.

For users of AMD processors, the current code probably always sets SSE3
and SSE41 flags. If AMD processor doesn't support SSE4.1 then it can
result in a crash.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Janne Hyvärinen wrote:

> Attached is a patch to fix the incorrect CPU feature detection:

Patched applied, but the CPU detection code remains, horrible to
read, difficult to reason about, work on and maintain.

This fix probably warrants a new release, but I'll hold off for a
week or so to make sure nothing else needs fixing.

Thanks,
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

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Janne Hyvärinen wrote:

> That shouldn't matter.

I realise that, but I wanted a better idea about how many people this
is like to affect. If you were on Windows XP on some old processor this
would probably not affect many people, but since you are on Windows 10
with a Core i7 thats a different matter.

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

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Janne Hyvärinen]

On 2.1.2017 19.02, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

Janne Hyvärinen wrote:


Something seems to be wrong with cpu.c CPU detection code. When I
compile things with MSVC all instructions except FMA is detected as
missing, even though they are present in my CPU. That of course results
in awful performance.

What Windows version and CPU was this?

Erik


That shouldn't matter. The __cpuid function was called with feature_id 
set to 0 so it was only returning manufacturer info. Not the features 
that were asked. But I'm on Windows 10 and CPU is Core i7-4771.


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

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Janne Hyvärinen]

Attached is a patch to fix the incorrect CPU feature detection:


On 2.1.2017 16.39, Janne Hyvärinen wrote:
Something seems to be wrong with cpu.c CPU detection code. When I 
compile things with MSVC all instructions except FMA is detected as 
missing, even though they are present in my CPU. That of course 
results in awful performance.



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


diff --git a/src/libFLAC/cpu.c b/src/libFLAC/cpu.c
index b9df19a..808d55d 100644
--- a/src/libFLAC/cpu.c
+++ b/src/libFLAC/cpu.c
@@ -269,9 +269,9 @@ void FLAC__cpu_info_x86(FLAC__uint32 level, FLAC__uint32 
*eax, FLAC__uint32 *ebx
__cpuid(cpuinfo, ext);
if((unsigned)cpuinfo[0] >= level) {
 #if FLAC__AVX_SUPPORTED
-   __cpuidex(cpuinfo, ext, 0); /* for AVX2 detection */
+   __cpuidex(cpuinfo, level, 0); /* for AVX2 detection */
 #else
-   __cpuid(cpuinfo, ext); /* some old compilers don't support 
__cpuidex */
+   __cpuid(cpuinfo, level); /* some old compilers don't support 
__cpuidex */
 #endif
 
*eax = cpuinfo[0]; *ebx = cpuinfo[1]; *ecx = cpuinfo[2]; *edx = 
cpuinfo[3];
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Janne Hyvärinen]

Something seems to be wrong with cpu.c CPU detection code. When I 
compile things with MSVC all instructions except FMA is detected as 
missing, even though they are present in my CPU. That of course results 
in awful performance.



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

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Declan Kelly]

On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 01:46:20PM +1100, mle...@mega-nerd.com wrote:
> 
> The Xiph.org download directory and github.com/xiph/flac don't seem to have
> been updated automatically as I expected. I'm chasing that.

The download host is hosted by Oregon State University - is it a mirror
site that's just for Xiph projects?

-- 
-Dec.
---
"Mosaic is going to be on every computer in the world." - Marc Andreessen, 1994
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Declan Kelly]

On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 01:46:20PM +1100, mle...@mega-nerd.com wrote:
> 
> The Xiph.org download directory and github.com/xiph/flac don't seem to have
> been updated automatically as I expected. I'm chasing that.

I should have checked that the new downloads were available from the
official site, before announcing.

20 minutes after making the announcement, someone was asking how to use
the new release with the EAC frontend. I'm going to reply saying to just
drop in the new flac.exe.


-- 
-Dec.
---
"Mosaic is going to be on every computer in the world." - Marc Andreessen, 1994
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Declan Kelly]

On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 01:23:20PM +1100, mle...@mega-nerd.com wrote:

> Please feel free to spread the word and please reply to this
> email to let us know where this is being announced.

Announcement was made on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/flac.audio/posts/10154824982999519


-- 
-Dec.
---
"Mosaic is going to be on every computer in the world." - Marc Andreessen, 1994
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Declan Kelly]

On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 07:40:57PM +, maurit...@xs4all.nl wrote:

> > FLAC 1.2.1 is the last version that works on Win95/98/NT4/2000 and
> > also it still has in_flac.dll (a plugin for Winamp 2.x). Also 1.2.1
> > is the latest official binaries that don't require SSE2.  So it can
> > be useful for some (very small) group of people.
> 
> Considering a newer version is posted right above 1.2.1 version I assume most 
> traffic is from direct links from a third party to the SourceForge binary. 
> Otherwise most people would be opting for the newer one. My guess is that the 
> majority of people downloading 1.2.1 from SF.net don’t even know there is a 
> newer version and keep using an unsafe version.

Is there a way to get the Referer logs from SourceForge?

> My suggestion would be to keep older versions on the Xiph download site and 
> remove all binaries from SourceForge (perhaps only keep 1.3.2 there). People 
> who specifically need to find older versions can still get it from Xiph while 
> people being sent to the outdated 1.2.1 version from a third party site will 
> need to Google for it and will most likely stumble upon the relevant Xiph 
> page and get the most recent version.

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

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[Jan Stary]

On Jan 01 13:46:20, mle...@mega-nerd.com wrote:
> I also notice that on sourceforge:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/flac/files/flac-win/
> there are still 1000+ downloads per week 1.2.1 windows binaries
> with know security holes.

Does that mean the windows binaries, specifically, do contain the bug,
but 1.2.1 as such does not?

> What do people think of the idea of
> disabling downloads of old, known buggy Windows binary downlaods?

Removing old releases is pointless.
What's there to gain by doing that?

On Dec 31 19:04:08, bri...@audiobanshee.com wrote:
> To put this another way, why not leave the 1.2.1 binaries available on
> a secondary web page dedicated to legacy operating systems?

Please don't. Why complicate things
by maintaining another webpage, and for what?

On Jan 01 10:54:21, lvqcl.m...@gmail.com wrote:
> FLAC 1.2.1 is the last version that works on Win95/98/NT4/2000

Running a buggy FLAC 1.2.1 is imho the least
security problem for people running Win 95.

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

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[MauritsVB]

> On 1 Jan 2017, at 07:54, lvqcl.mail  wrote:
> 
> Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> 
>> I also notice that on sourceforge:
>> 
>>https://sourceforge.net/projects/flac/files/flac-win/
>> 
>> there are still 1000+ downloads per week 1.2.1 windows binaries
>> with know security holes. What do people think of the idea of
>> disabling downloads of old, known buggy Windows binary downlaods?
> 
> FLAC 1.2.1 is the last version that works on Win95/98/NT4/2000 and
> also it still has in_flac.dll (a plugin for Winamp 2.x). Also 1.2.1
> is the latest official binaries that don't require SSE2.  So it can
> be useful for some (very small) group of people.
> ___
> 

Considering a newer version is posted right above 1.2.1 version I assume most 
traffic is from direct links from a third party to the SourceForge binary. 
Otherwise most people would be opting for the newer one. My guess is that the 
majority of people downloading 1.2.1 from SF.net don’t even know there is a 
newer version and keep using an unsafe version.

My suggestion would be to keep older versions on the Xiph download site and 
remove all binaries from SourceForge (perhaps only keep 1.3.2 there). People 
who specifically need to find older versions can still get it from Xiph while 
people being sent to the outdated 1.2.1 version from a third party site will 
need to Google for it and will most likely stumble upon the relevant Xiph page 
and get the most recent version.

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

Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.2 has been released

[lvqcl.mail]

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:


I also notice that on sourceforge:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/flac/files/flac-win/

there are still 1000+ downloads per week 1.2.1 windows binaries
with know security holes. What do people think of the idea of
disabling downloads of old, known buggy Windows binary downlaods?


FLAC 1.2.1 is the last version that works on Win95/98/NT4/2000 and
also it still has in_flac.dll (a plugin for Winamp 2.x). Also 1.2.1
is the latest official binaries that don't require SSE2.  So it can
be useful for some (very small) group of people.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev