[opus] [PATCH] cosmetics, silk: correct input/output arg comments

[Linfeng Zhang]

Hi Ulrich,

Thanks for checking the patch.

The entire declarations of the functions are like this:

void silk_NSQ_del_dec_c(
    const silk_encoder_state    *psEncC,
 /* I/O  Encoder State                   */
    silk_nsq_state              *NSQ,
/* I/O  NSQ state                       */
    SideInfoIndices             *psIndices,
/* I/O  Quantization Indices            */
    const opus_int16            x16[],
   /* I    Input                           */
    opus_int8                   pulses[],
/* O    Quantized pulse signal          */
    const opus_int16            PredCoef_Q12[ 2 * MAX_LPC_ORDER ],
 /* I    Short term prediction coefs     */
    const opus_int16            LTPCoef_Q14[ LTP_ORDER * MAX_NB_SUBFR ],
 /* I    Long term prediction coefs      */
    const opus_int16            AR_Q13[ MAX_NB_SUBFR * MAX_SHAPE_LPC_ORDER
], /* I Noise shaping coefs              */
    const opus_int              HarmShapeGain_Q14[ MAX_NB_SUBFR ],
 /* I    Long term shaping coefs         */
    const opus_int              Tilt_Q14[ MAX_NB_SUBFR ],
/* I    Spectral tilt                   */
    const opus_int32            LF_shp_Q14[ MAX_NB_SUBFR ],
/* I    Low frequency shaping coefs     */
    const opus_int32            Gains_Q16[ MAX_NB_SUBFR ],
 /* I    Quantization step sizes         */
    const opus_int              pitchL[ MAX_NB_SUBFR ],
/* I    Pitch lags                      */
    const opus_int              Lambda_Q10,
/* I    Rate/distortion tradeoff        */
    const opus_int              LTP_scale_Q14
/* I    LTP state scaling               */
)

So the comments are trying to indent to the longest argument AR_Q13[
MAX_NB_SUBFR * MAX_SHAPE_LPC_ORDER ], though still failed by 2 white spaces.

This patch only focuses on the I/O comments correction, so we didn't touch
the indention issue.

Thanks,
Linfeng


On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Ulrich Windl <
Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> While talking on cosmetics: I noticed that a few lines significantly
> exceed the 80-column limit  without obvious need. See attachment for an
> example.
>
> Regards,
> Ulrich
>
> >>> Linfeng Zhang <linfengz at google.com> schrieb am 19.04.2017 um 18:49 in
> Nachricht
> <CAKoqLCA-tXd7XSa0a1T9xE4SF9GPMp+ySxsULgbB_F_=3dK3iw at mail.gmail.com>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Attached is a patch for cosmetics purpose. Please review.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Linfeng Zhang
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20170424/f4c0784a/attachment.html>