"Ronald S. Bultje" <[email protected]> writes: f> Hi, > > 2011/12/15 Måns Rullgård <[email protected]> > >> >> @@ -230,7 +263,12 @@ static inline int get_bits_count(const >> GetBitContext >> >> *s) { >> >> > static inline void skip_bits_long(GetBitContext *s, int n){ >> >> > OPEN_READER(re, s); >> >> > re_bit_count += n; >> >> > +#if UNCHECKED_BITSTREAM_READER >> >> > re_buffer_ptr += re_bit_count>>5; >> >> > +#else >> >> > + re_buffer_ptr = (re_bit_count >> 5) < (const uint32_t *) >> s->buffer_end - re_buffer_ptr ? >> >> > + re_buffer_ptr + (re_bit_count >> 5) : (const >> uint32_t *) s->buffer_end; >> >> > +#endif >> >> >> >> This is again guaranteed to fall within the padding region, so whatever >> >> variant gives better code is OK to use here. >> > >> > gcc messes up and does 4 more instructions. Fortunately it's not terribly >> > important, but I'll stick to this: >> > >> > [..] >> > re_buffer_ptr += re_bit_count>>5; >> > + #if !UNCHECKED_BITSTREAM_READER >> > + re_buffer_ptr = FFMIN(re_buffer_ptr, s->buffer_end); >> > + #endif >> >> Gah, I'm stupid. This is skip_bits_long(), which can be called with any >> value. It must protect against overflow. > > No you're actually right, but differently; re_bit_count is never >31.
The &= 31 is after the addition, so it can have any value. If that were not the case, skip_bits_long() would not work at all. -- Måns Rullgård [email protected] _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
