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
This reverts commit 7f56cb29787b187c8cb1b778918ca3b80184c804.
It causes uninitialized reads in the first pass setting up later cost tables.
Change-Id: I2df498df3f5c03eff359f79edf045aed0c618dc9
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://code.google.com/p/webm/issues/detail?id=1089
Change-Id: Ia6dcc8922e1acbac0eeca23a4d564a355c489572
