On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_z...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 17/04/2017 21:31, Vittorio Giovara wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_z...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On 17/04/2017 18:06, Vittorio Giovara wrote: >>>> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_z...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>> It is undefined in C as reported: >>>>> warning: shifting a negative signed value is undefined >>>>> --- >>>>> libswscale/output.c | 23 +++++++++++++---------- >>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> why are you using a macro to do a simple << (1 * val) here? >>>> >>> >>> Clarity and concision. >> >> except a macro is neither >> >> by reading the code i can immediately tell what << (1 * val) is doing, >> whereas a macro, despite aptly named, carries additional semantic that >> I have to be aware of and remember. IMO is not worth the trouble here >> > > It is quite easy to typo the correct statement, I'd rather keep the > macro if you aren't strongly against it.
I'm not strongly against, but I do dislike spreading macros when not needed. Keep it like that, patch ok. -- Vittorio _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
