* [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v3 0/3] checkasm: updated tests for sw_scale
@ 2022-08-13 20:55 Swinney, Jonathan
2022-08-16 10:41 ` Martin Storsjö
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Swinney, Jonathan @ 2022-08-13 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ffmpeg-devel; +Cc: Martin Storsjö, Hubert Mazur
> 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 again for your review!
Jonathan Swinney
_______________________________________________
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".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v3 0/3] checkasm: updated tests for sw_scale
2022-08-13 20:55 [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v3 0/3] checkasm: updated tests for sw_scale Swinney, Jonathan
@ 2022-08-16 10:41 ` Martin Storsjö
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Martin Storsjö @ 2022-08-16 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Swinney, Jonathan; +Cc: Hubert Mazur, ffmpeg-devel
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".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-08-16 10:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-08-13 20:55 [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v3 0/3] checkasm: updated tests for sw_scale Swinney, Jonathan
2022-08-16 10:41 ` Martin Storsjö
Git Inbox Mirror of the ffmpeg-devel mailing list - see https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:
git clone --mirror https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev/0 ffmpegdev/git/0.git
# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
public-inbox-init -V2 ffmpegdev ffmpegdev/ https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev \
ffmpegdev@gitmailbox.com
public-inbox-index ffmpegdev
Example config snippet for mirrors.
AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git