On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 01:55:01PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: > "Ronald S. Bultje" <[email protected]> writes: > > 2012/3/20 Måns Rullgård <[email protected]>: > >> "Ronald S. Bultje" <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >>> Found-by: Mateusz "j00ru" Jurczyk and Gynvael Coldwind > >>> --- > >>> libavcodec/x86/cabac.h | 15 ++++++++++----- > >>> libavcodec/x86/h264_i386.h | 18 ++++++++++++------ > >>> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> --- a/libavcodec/x86/cabac.h > >>> +++ b/libavcodec/x86/cabac.h > >>> @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ > >>> > >>> -#define BRANCHLESS_GET_CABAC(ret, statep, low, lowword, range, tmp, > >>> tmpbyte, byte) \ > >>> +#define BRANCHLESS_GET_CABAC(ret, statep, low, lowword, range, tmp, > >>> tmpbyte, byte, end) \ > >>> "movzbl "statep" , "ret" > >>> \n\t"\ > >>> "mov "range" , "tmp" > >>> \n\t"\ > >>> "and $0xC0 , "range" > >>> \n\t"\ > >>> @@ -64,9 +64,12 @@ > >>> "shl %%cl , "low" > >>> \n\t"\ > >>> "mov "tmpbyte" , "statep" > >>> \n\t"\ > >>> "test "lowword" , "lowword" > >>> \n\t"\ > >>> - " jnz 1f > >>> \n\t"\ > >>> + " jnz 2f > >>> \n\t"\ > >> > >> Why do you renumber these? Number labels don't need to be in ascending > >> order or anything like that. > > > > Because it's cleaner. > > The patch certainly is not.
How does this comment help us move forward? Thanks for sharing your opinion with us, but we heard you loud and clear the first time around. The labels get renumbered, so be it. Now let's move on towards solving the problem at hand, which is the overread and the compiler magic. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
