similar to: flac fingerprint

2007/10/15, David W. Tamkin <dattier@panix.com>: > > Harry, > > > so i was wondering what advantages it could give me to make a ffp > > file, because there is already a internally stored md5 checksum on the > > decoded audio data inside the flac file? > > Testing the .flac file against its internally stored fingerprint lets > you know that you have a

Harry, > so i was wondering what advantages it could give me to make a ffp > file, because there is already a internally stored md5 checksum on the > decoded audio data inside the flac file? Testing the .flac file against its internally stored fingerprint lets you know that you have a properly encoded .flac file of *something*. If you also certify that internally stored fingerprint

Great info. I found some descriptions of st5 (md5 fp) and ffp, where I assume that "fp" is just a Taper abbreviation for "fingerprint" - or signature as it's called in the flac header. However, I could not find these utilities or source code. What I found looked like instructions for a gui-based program. I think it would be easier to support Mac if st5 were

In windows command line: I have a wav file and would like to see what the flac fingerprint would be. To do this I run flac to encode the wav file and write the flac file to the hard disk. I then run metaflac to read the flac file and display the fingerprint. Is there an existing way or other utility to do this without generating the flac file on the hard disk. I would think it could be quicker

i forgot to ask this important question :) why doesn't a ffp file make a md5 of the *whole* flac file, so that all non-audio data inside the file are verified too? in my opinion, now it only does the same as the internally stored md5 on the decompressed audio data, but there is still no way to verify the header of the flac file (so i mean : all non-audio data in the file) or am i forgotting

If md5sum --check did not return an error with a truncated file, then the file was likely broken to start with. I think the chances of a corrupted file generating the same md5sum is close enough to 0 that you will never see it in a life time. Also, you lost me on storing the md5sum value at the begging and the end? On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Dat Head <dathead2 at gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for all the responses to my question. I think I can use shntool hash option for my project I did not find in the shntool documentation or flac documentation that the hash or st5 always would match the flac fingerprint. But at least in a couple tests I did they matched. And I found some more comments around the internet indicating they were the same. -----Original Message----- From:

shntool (http://etree.org/shnutils/, http://shnutils.freeshell.org/) is Windows-only, but the source is available. > Great info. I found some descriptions of st5 (md5 fp) and ffp, where I > assume that "fp" is just a Taper abbreviation for "fingerprint" - or > signature as it's called in the flac header. However, I could not find > these utilities or source

On 14 October 2016 at 15:50, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > These 3 tests are passing with the following configurations: > -O3 -ffp-contract=off > -O3 -ffp-contract=on > -O0 -ffp-contract=off > -O0 -ffp-contract=on > > They are not passing at: > -Ofast -ffp-contract=on > -Ofast -ffp-contract=off Let's separate completely FP-contract and

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > I don't think that Clang/LLVM uses it by default on x86_64. If you're using -Ofast, however, that would explain it. I recommend looking at -O3 vs -O0 and make sure those are the same. -Ofast enables -ffast-math, which can legitimately cause differences. > The following tests pass at "-O3" and

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> To: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> >> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>,

Hi, I would like to provide a summary of the different proposals on how to fix the test-suite to make it succeed when specifying extra CFLAGS "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on". I would like to expose the issue and proposed ways to fix it to other potential reviewers that could provide extra feedback. We also need to decide which proposal (or combination of) to implement and

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finkel via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> > Cc: "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Matthias Braun" > <matze at braunis.de>, "Clang Dev" <cfe-dev

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com <mailto:sebpop.llvm at gmail.com>> >> To: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> >> Cc: "Kristof

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "Abe Skolnik" > <a.skolnik at samsung.com>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at

This is just paraphrasing from D26602, so credit to Nicolai for first raising the issue there. float foo(float x, float y) { return x * (y + 1); } $ ./clang -O2 xy1.c -S -o - -target aarch64 -ffp-contract=fast | grep fm fmadd s0, s1, s0, s0 Is this a bug? We transformed the original expression into: x * y + x When x=INF and y=0, the code returns INF if we don't reassociate. With

---> On 15/03/2009 8:00 AM, nut-upsuser-request at lists.alioth.debian.org wrote: > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:47:08 +0100 > From: Arjen de Korte <nut+users at de-korte.org> > Subject: Re: [Nut-upsuser] Weird Load and Battery Temp Readings > To: nut-upsuser at lists.alioth.debian.org > Message-ID: <20090314214708.37122w00w79l6u9s at mail.de-korte.org>

--- "Paino, Christopher L YN1(AW) (CPF N0084)" <PainoCL@cpf.navy.mil> wrote: > If I am understanding FLAC correctly, the internal MD5 sum is (or can > be > )different than the fingerprint file sum. Yes. > The internal sum can be > different > depending on which compression settings are used, while the audio > remains > unchanged. It's the other way

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sanjay Patel" <spatel at rotateright.com> > To: "Hal J. Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, > "andrew kaylor" <andrew.kaylor at

I've tried to do: clang++ -O3 -march=native -mtune=native \ -Rpass=loop-vectorize,slp-vectorize -Rpass-missed=loop-vectorize,slp-vectorize -Rpass-analysis=loop-vectorize,slp-vectorize \ -ffast-math -ffp-model=fast -ffp-exception-behavior=ignore -ffp-contract=fast \ -c -o vec.o vec.cc But I've got no feedback. -- Alexandre Bique