On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:> Is there any consensus on what's the correct fix here?Cameron's fix looks correct to me (I didn't read the code closely enough in my first comment). // Martin
On 11/06/2014 10:55 PM, Martin Storsj? wrote:> On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > >> Is there any consensus on what's the correct fix here? > > Cameron's fix looks correct to me (I didn't read the code closely enough > in my first comment). > > // Martin > _______________________________________________ > opus mailing list > opus at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus >That looks good to me as well, I'm happy to drop the original patch in favor of this one! Also, thanks for the review! -- Hugo Beauz?e-Luyssen hugo at beauzee.fr +33-7-83-33-84-08 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20141110/c0688c18/attachment.pgp
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Hugo Beauzee-Luyssen wrote:> On 11/06/2014 10:55 PM, Martin Storsj? wrote: >> On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: >> >>> Is there any consensus on what's the correct fix here? >> >> Cameron's fix looks correct to me (I didn't read the code closely enough >> in my first comment). >> > > That looks good to me as well, I'm happy to drop the original patch in > favor of this one!Since we seem to have complete consensus, can someone push Cameron's patch? // Martin