On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 09:19:35PM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote: > On Tue, 17 May 2016, Diego Biurrun wrote: > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 01:15:40PM -0400, Vittorio Giovara wrote: > >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> --- a/libavutil/tests/xtea.c > >>> +++ b/libavutil/tests/xtea.c > >>> @@ -80,41 +81,44 @@ static void test_xtea(AVXTEA *ctx, uint8_t *dst, > >>> const uint8_t *src, > >>> > >>> int main(void) > >>> { > >>> - AVXTEA ctx; > >>> uint8_t buf[16], iv[8]; > >>> int i, j; > >>> static const uint8_t src[32] = "HelloWorldHelloWorldHelloWorld"; > >>> uint8_t ct[32]; > >>> uint8_t pl[32]; > >>> + AVXTEA *ctx = av_xtea_alloc(); > >>> + if (!ctx) > >>> + return -1; > >> > >> I think you have to return positive values for errors. > > > > I don't think so. What gives you the idea? > > Because the return value of a process is in the range 0-255. Normally, the > range 0-127 is used for return values directly returned by the main > function, while the range 128-255 is used for cases when the process is > killed by a signal, where the value somehow hints about what signal killed > it. Now if you return a negative value from main, this ends up mapped into > the high half of the range, making it alias the return code or signals.
Indeed, thanks for reminding me. For reference: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_08_02 Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
