Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/4] checkasm: Implement helpers for defining and checking padded rects

["Martin Storsjö" <martin@martin.st>]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Martin Storsjö wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
>>>>>  #define DEF_CHECKASM_CHECK_FUNC(type, fmt) \
>>>>>  int checkasm_check_##type(const char *file, int line, \
>>>>>                            const type *buf1, ptrdiff_t stride1, \
>>>>>                            const type *buf2, ptrdiff_t stride2, \
>>>>> -                          int w, int h, const char *name) \
>>>>> +                          int w, int h, const char *name, \
>>>>> +                          int align_w, int align_h, \
>>>>> +                          int padding) \
>>>>>  { \
>>>> 
>>>>> +    int aligned_w = (w + align_w - 1) & ~(align_w - 1); \
>>>>> +    int aligned_h = (h + align_h - 1) & ~(align_h - 1); \
>>>> 
>>>> this can overflow
>>>> feel free to fix in a seperate patch
>>> 
>>> Feel free to propose a patch for how you'd prefer to have it fixed then... 
>>> I
>>> don't see this as a real world problem - w and h are bounded by the tests
>>> themselves, and likewise the alignments - I don't see us having tests 
>>> using
>>> buffers with a width near INT32_MAX?
>> 
>> maybe but then
>> if we want our asm code to handle such extrem cases, something needs to
>> test it
>> 
>> ill send a patch based on this: (once your patches are in / minus in case
>> i forget)
>> 
>> int64_t aligned_w = (w - 1LL + align_w) & ~(align_w - 1); \
>> if (aligned_w != (int32_t)aligned_w)
>>    return AVERROR(EINVAL)
>
> Ok, if you find that important.
>
> I'll go ahead and push patches 1-2 and 4 from this set, soon, holding off of 
> patch 3/4 while waiting for someone to fix the Loongarch HEVC SIMD.

Pushed.

// Martin
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".