-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35
Pulse buffer fixes #8
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
tomty89
wants to merge
3
commits into
xiph:master
Choose a base branch
from
tomty89:pulse_buffer
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wouldn't this make more sense as unsigned?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ePirat To be frank, my C is really bad, so I don't exactly know. I don't even remember why I made this change because this was so long ago. I think the reason was that
atoi
returnsint
, and/or there was this(int)
casting for(internal->buffer_time * format->rate)
, so to prevent something goes wrong accidentally (like it being an unsigned resulting in other variables getting set to some unexpected value), I went withint
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, actually it might be because
atoi(value) * 1000
was apparently due tobuffer_time
being a "usec", and because there is no "pa_msec_t", I went with whatatoi
returns when I remove the* 1000
(and didn't care whattlength
is)...Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should I maybe just ditch this line of change? Like keeping it as
pa_usec_t
(uint64_t
)? Or should I change it tounsigned int
(oruint32_t
?) anyway?(Does using 64-bit for it minimize the chance of overflow as of
internal->buffer_time * format->rate
(i.e. before/ 1000
)? Or does the "limit" come from whattlength
is instead?)