The old workaround "p = 0 ? 0 : p -1" is misleading.
?: happens before =
assigning back to p truncates to one byte.
Therefore it is equivalent to (p - 1) & 0xFF, but the check just exists
to work around a first pass bug, so let's make the work around more
clear.
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/webm/issues/detail?id=1089
Change-Id: I587c44dd61c1f3767543c0126376f881889935af
{255, 241, 243, 255, 236, 255, 252, 254},
{255, 243, 245, 255, 237, 255, 252, 254},
{255, 246, 247, 255, 239, 255, 253, 255},
- {255, 246, 247, 255, 239, 255, 253, 255},
};
static const vp10_coeff_probs_model default_coef_probs_4x4[PLANE_TYPES] = {
};
static void extend_to_full_distribution(vpx_prob *probs, vpx_prob p) {
- memcpy(probs, vp10_pareto8_full[p = 0 ? 0 : p - 1],
+ // TODO(aconverse): model[PIVOT_NODE] should never be zero.
+ // https://code.google.com/p/webm/issues/detail?id=1089
+ memcpy(probs, vp10_pareto8_full[p == 0 ? 254 : p - 1],
MODEL_NODES * sizeof(vpx_prob));
}
// 1, 3, 5, 7, ..., 253, 255
// In between probabilities are interpolated linearly
-#define COEFF_PROB_MODELS 256
+#define COEFF_PROB_MODELS 255
#define UNCONSTRAINED_NODES 3
{255, 241, 243, 255, 236, 255, 252, 254},
{255, 243, 245, 255, 237, 255, 252, 254},
{255, 246, 247, 255, 239, 255, 253, 255},
- {255, 246, 247, 255, 239, 255, 253, 255},
};
static const vp9_coeff_probs_model default_coef_probs_4x4[PLANE_TYPES] = {
};
static void extend_to_full_distribution(vpx_prob *probs, vpx_prob p) {
- memcpy(probs, vp9_pareto8_full[p = 0 ? 0 : p - 1],
+ // TODO(aconverse): model[PIVOT_NODE] should never be zero.
+ // https://code.google.com/p/webm/issues/detail?id=1089
+ memcpy(probs, vp9_pareto8_full[p == 0 ? 254 : p - 1],
MODEL_NODES * sizeof(vpx_prob));
}
// 1, 3, 5, 7, ..., 253, 255
// In between probabilities are interpolated linearly
-#define COEFF_PROB_MODELS 256
+#define COEFF_PROB_MODELS 255
#define UNCONSTRAINED_NODES 3