On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 09:09:28AM +0200, Matthieu Bouron wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 06:04:12AM +0200, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
> > The check "if (!pb->seekable & AVIO_SEEKABLE_NORMAL)" is wrong, because
> > ! has higher precendence than &. But it is also redundant, because this
> > part of
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 06:04:12AM +0200, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
> The check "if (!pb->seekable & AVIO_SEEKABLE_NORMAL)" is wrong, because
> ! has higher precendence than &. But it is also redundant, because this
> part of the code is only ever reached when the AVIO_SEEKABLE_NORMAL flag
> is set
The check "if (!pb->seekable & AVIO_SEEKABLE_NORMAL)" is wrong, because
! has higher precendence than &. But it is also redundant, because this
part of the code is only ever reached when the AVIO_SEEKABLE_NORMAL flag
is set for pb. So simply remove the check.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Rheinhardt
---
