From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62DC743E53 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 10:41:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 661CB68B43B; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 13:41:25 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mail8.parnet.fi (mail8.parnet.fi [77.234.108.134]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68B8E68B43B for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 13:41:18 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mail9.parnet.fi (mail9.parnet.fi [77.234.108.21]) by mail8.parnet.fi with ESMTP id 27GAfBI1017857-27GAfBI2017857; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 13:41:11 +0300 Received: from foo.martin.st (host-97-187.parnet.fi [77.234.97.187]) by mail9.parnet.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 408FDA146D; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 13:41:10 +0300 (EEST) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 13:41:10 +0300 (EEST) From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Martin_Storsj=F6?= To: "Swinney, Jonathan" In-Reply-To: <241b0204d8e34436b8fc785654ce48c8@amazon.com> Message-ID: <555263de-b61c-19fd-aa15-f995d5fdf46@martin.st> References: <241b0204d8e34436b8fc785654ce48c8@amazon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FE-Policy-ID: 3:14:2:SYSTEM Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v3 0/3] checkasm: updated tests for sw_scale X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Cc: Hubert Mazur , "ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: On Sat, 13 Aug 2022, Swinney, Jonathan wrote: >> We don't generally use stdbool in ffmpeg, even if it's C99 - just use a >> plain int and 0/1. > Updated this. > >> Other than that, the checkasm changes look fine (I coauthored part of >> them - and your cleanup of my WIP patch looks good!). > Yes, thank you for the help on that! > >> Hmm, can you elaborate on this bit? With only the first patch applied, the >> checkasm test still succeeds. > That was leftover from when my test was broken. Is that that with the fixed > test, it works fine. > >> Could we split this improvement for the existing codepath into a separate >> preceding patch, to keep things a bit clearer? > I split it out. Let me know if I didn't split like you intended. Thanks, this looked good to me, so I pushed them! // 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".