[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avcodec/fft_template: Fix multiple runtime error: signed integer overflow: -1943918714 - 1935113003 cannot be represented in type 'int'

Paul B Mahol onemda at gmail.com
Sun Jun 11 16:21:38 EEST 2017


On 6/11/17, Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:07:39PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Michael Niedermayer
>> <michael at niedermayer.cc>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:35:07PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Michael Niedermayer
>> > <michael at niedermayer.cc>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Signed value in
>> > > > Unsigned
>> > > > INTeger type
>> > >
>> > > [..]
>> > > > Both SUINT and unsigned should produce identical binaries
>> > >
>> > > This seems to go against the rule that code should be as simple as
>> > possible.
>> > >
>> > > Unsigned is simpler than SUINT if the outcome is the same.
>> >
>> > You can simply add the part of my mail here as awnser that you snipped
>> > away:
>> >
>> > "But it makes the code hard to understand and maintain because these
>> >  values are not positive integers but signed integers. Which for
>> >  C standard compliance need to be stored in a unsigned type."
>> >
>> > A type that avoids the undefinedness of signed but is semantically
>> > signed is correct, unsigned is not.
>> >
>> > If understandable code and maintainable code has no value to you,
>> > you would favour using single letter variables exclusivly and would
>> > never use typedef.
>> > But you do not do that.
>> >
>> > I fail to understand why you insist on using unsigned in place of a
>> > more specific type, it is not the correct nor clean thing to do.
>>
>>
>> It's not just me, it appears to be most of us. Can't you just step back
>> at
>> some point and be like "ok, I'll let the majority have their way"?
>
> I do not know what the majority prefers. What i see is that the
> people objecting are always the same 3-4 people. And very often
> they have no authorship or past activity in the code a patch is about.
> At least none i could find quickly.

How dare you speak like that about me?

Do you think about yourself like holy cow in any aspect of FFmpeg,
security or not.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list