On 9/19/2022 2:57 PM, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
+void checkasm_check_vorbisdsp(void) +{ + VorbisDSPContext dsp; + + ff_vorbisdsp_init(&dsp); + + if (check_func(dsp.vorbis_inverse_coupling, "vorbis_inverse_coupling")) + test_inverse_coupling(); + report("vorbis_inverse_coupling");Should these not be just "inverse_coupling" seen as there is already a "vorbisdsp" prefix in the logs?
It can, if anything so the relevant line is shorter when the report is printed. Changed locally.
I just went and used the name of the function pointer as it's in VorbisDSPContext. A name that could be changed too, for that matter.
Other than that, this is very much welcome for me.+} diff --git a/tests/fate/checkasm.mak b/tests/fate/checkasm.mak index 4d2f321e84..fbba0b5b8f 100644 --- a/tests/fate/checkasm.mak +++ b/tests/fate/checkasm.mak @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ FATE_CHECKASM = fate-checkasm-aacpsdsp \ fate-checkasm-vf_nlmeans \ fate-checkasm-vf_threshold \ fate-checkasm-videodsp \ + fate-checkasm-vorbisdsp \ fate-checkasm-vp8dsp \ fate-checkasm-vp9dsp \
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
