Reimar Döffinger wrote: > On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 03:58:05AM +0200, ramiro wrote: >> Author: ramiro >> Date: Tue Sep 9 03:58:05 2008 >> New Revision: 3740 >> >> Log: >> Split a put_bits(32) into two put_bits(16). >> >> Modified: >> mlp/mlpenc.c >> >> Modified: mlp/mlpenc.c >> ============================================================================== >> --- mlp/mlpenc.c (original) >> +++ mlp/mlpenc.c Tue Sep 9 03:58:05 2008 >> @@ -779,7 +779,8 @@ static void write_major_sync(MLPEncodeCo >> * from samples that are stereo and have >> * 44100Hz. */ >> put_bits(&pb, 8, ctx->mlp_channels2); >> - put_bits(&pb, 32, 0x00008080 ); /* These values seem */ >> + put_bits(&pb, 16, 0x0000); >> + put_bits(&pb, 16, 0x8080); /* These values seem */ >> put_bits(&pb, 8, 0x00 ); /* to be constants. */ > > The comments make much less sense like this, they really should be > aligned. And do you know what the first 16 bits are? I find it quite > confusing. > Maybe some comment above all these saying "// the next 40 bits seem to be > constant, their meaning is unknown" might be better.
I thought I had replied, but the e-mail didn't get through... I'm not doing any cosmetics lately because I'm still reworking and shifting around lots of code, and I'll do big cosmetics commits when I think the code is well and functional. (and you have just noticed *now* the ugly inconsistencies in cosmetics? =) Better than fixing the comment for these fields is to actually understand them... Ramiro Polla _______________________________________________ FFmpeg-soc mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-soc
