On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Vittorio Giovara
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
> wrote:
>> On 15.12.2015 08:17, Anton Khirnov wrote:
>>> Can you share the sample that shows the problem?
>>
>> I could, but it's of no use for comparing with libopus, because their
>> d
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
wrote:
> On 15.12.2015 08:17, Anton Khirnov wrote:
>> Can you share the sample that shows the problem?
>
> I could, but it's of no use for comparing with libopus, because their
> decoder errors out in an unrelated check.
>
>> From what I can see,
On 15.12.2015 08:17, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Can you share the sample that shows the problem?
I could, but it's of no use for comparing with libopus, because their
decoder errors out in an unrelated check.
> From what I can see, libopus does not do any clipping at that point, so
> something else m
Can you share the sample that shows the problem?
>From what I can see, libopus does not do any clipping at that point, so
something else must ensure that there is no overflow.
--
Anton Khirnov
___
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://l
nlsf can be negative, but a negative index for silk_cosine doesn't work.
---
libavcodec/opus_silk.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/libavcodec/opus_silk.c b/libavcodec/opus_silk.c
index 841d1ed..3ac83b8 100644
--- a/libavcodec/opus_silk.c
+++ b/libavcodec/opus_s
