On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 03:23:47PM -0800, Nick Lewycky wrote:
> Sorry-- what should I do now? Wait for another patch to go in first then
> rebase on top of it? Attempt to migrate error_count to C11 atomics myself?
> If I'm migrating, is there a primer on how ffmpeg uses C11 atomics? For
> instance,
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 03:23:47PM -0800, Nick Lewycky wrote:
[...]
> error_resilience.c | 22 --
> error_resilience.h |3 ++-
> h264_slice.c |6 --
> mpeg12dec.c| 11 ++-
> mpegvideo_enc.c|5 -
> 5 files changed, 28 insertions(
Sorry-- what should I do now? Wait for another patch to go in first then
rebase on top of it? Attempt to migrate error_count to C11 atomics myself?
If I'm migrating, is there a primer on how ffmpeg uses C11 atomics? For
instance, given an atomic_int, should I assign to it with equality,
atomic_stor
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 05:10:17PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 11/17/2017 4:20 PM, James Almer wrote:
> > On 11/17/2017 4:16 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:07:54PM -0800, Nick Lewycky wrote:
> >>> Sorry! Let's try an attachment then.
> >>>
> >>> On 16 November 201
On 11/17/2017 4:20 PM, James Almer wrote:
> On 11/17/2017 4:16 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:07:54PM -0800, Nick Lewycky wrote:
>>> Sorry! Let's try an attachment then.
>>>
>>> On 16 November 2017 at 14:36, Michael Niedermayer
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at
On 11/17/2017 4:16 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:07:54PM -0800, Nick Lewycky wrote:
>> Sorry! Let's try an attachment then.
>>
>> On 16 November 2017 at 14:36, Michael Niedermayer
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:41:32PM -0800, Nick Lewycky wrote:
I initi
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:07:54PM -0800, Nick Lewycky wrote:
> Sorry! Let's try an attachment then.
>
> On 16 November 2017 at 14:36, Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:41:32PM -0800, Nick Lewycky wrote:
> >> I initially discovered a signed integer overflow on this line.
Sorry! Let's try an attachment then.
On 16 November 2017 at 14:36, Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:41:32PM -0800, Nick Lewycky wrote:
>> I initially discovered a signed integer overflow on this line. Since
>> this value is updated in multiple threads, I use an atomic updat
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:41:32PM -0800, Nick Lewycky wrote:
> I initially discovered a signed integer overflow on this line. Since
> this value is updated in multiple threads, I use an atomic update and
> as it happens atomic addition is defined to wrap around. However,
> there's still a potentia
I initially discovered a signed integer overflow on this line. Since
this value is updated in multiple threads, I use an atomic update and
as it happens atomic addition is defined to wrap around. However,
there's still a potential bug in that the error_count may wrap around
and equal zero again cau
10 matches
Mail list logo