On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Kostya Shishkov wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:01:54AM +0200, Laurent Aimar wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 09:23:56AM +0200, Kostya Shishkov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 10:08:37PM +0200, Laurent Aimar wrote:
See patch.
Last two chunks (zeroing samples_left when end of data is reported) is fine,
first chunks are a bit suspicious since they hit corner cases. For example,
what happens if block ends with a run of zeroes? Probably some get_bits_left()
checks should be for strictly negative, not negative or zero.
There is always a following read.
Ah, point taken.
@@ -360,9 +367,13 @@ static int wv_get_value(WavpackFrameContext *ctx,
GetBitContext *gb, int channel
}
if(!c->error_limit){
ret = base + get_tail(gb, add);
+ if (get_bits_left(gb) <= 0)
+ goto error;
}else{
int mid = (base*2 + add + 1) >> 1;
while(add > c->error_limit){
+ if(get_bits_left(gb) <= 0)
+ goto error;
if(get_bits1(gb)){
add -= (mid - base);
base = mid;
I assume only this part was being criticised about. In this case, the
original code is:
if(!c->error_limit){
ret = base + get_tail(gb, add);
}else{
int mid = (base*2 + add + 1) >> 1;
while(add > c->error_limit){
if(get_bits1(gb)){
add -= (mid - base);
base = mid;
}else
add = mid - base - 1;
mid = (base*2 + add + 1) >> 1;
}
ret = mid;
}
sign = get_bits1(gb);
where a bit is always read at least after the code I changed,
so <= is the right test IMHO.
Indeed, patch is OK then.
Pushed this one and the other two that you ok'd so far - only one left
pending ok?
// Martin
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
