Standardizing each function to always specify parameters and return
values. Also moved the parameters and return values to the end of each
function description.
Use "member" to refer to struct members as that's the term used
by the C standard.
Use lzma_options_delta.dist and such in docs so that in Doxygen's
HTML output they will link to the doc of the struct member.
Clean up a few trailing white spaces too.
It gives C4146 here since unary minus with unsigned integer
is still unsigned (which is the intention here). Doing it
with substraction makes it clearer and avoids the warning.
Thanks to Nathan Moinvaziri for reporting this.
Standardizing each function to always specify parameters and return
values. Also moved the parameters and return values to the end of each
function description.
A few small things were reworded and long sentences broken up.
All functions now explicitly specify parameter and return values.
Also moved the note about SHA-256 functions not being exported to the
top of the file.
The bug is only a problem in applications that do not properly terminate
the filters[] array with LZMA_VLI_UNKNOWN or have more than
LZMA_FILTERS_MAX filters. This bug does not affect xz.
Added a few sentences to the description for lzma_block_encoder() and
lzma_block_decoder() to highlight that the Block Header must be coded
before calling these functions.
Standardizing each function to always specify params and return values.
Output pointer parameters are also marked with doxygen style [out] to
make it clear. Any note sections were also moved above the parameter and
return sections for consistency.
The flag description for LZMA_STR_NO_VALIDATION was previously confusing
about the treatment for filters than cannot be used with .xz format
(lzma1) without using LZMA_STR_ALL_FILTERS. Now, it is clear that
LZMA_STR_NO_VALIDATION is not a super set of LZMA_STR_ALL_FILTERS.
The previous documentation for lzma_str_to_filters() was technically
correct, but misleading. lzma_str_to_filters() returns NULL on success,
which is in practice always defined to 0. This is the same value as
LZMA_OK, but lzma_str_to_filters() does not return lzma_ret so we should
be more clear.
It doesn't warn on a 64-bit system because truncating
a ptrdiff_t (signed long) to uint32_t is diagnosed under
-Wconversion by GCC and -Wshorten-64-to-32 by Clang.
This is similar to 2ce4f36f179a81d0c6e182a409f363df759d1ad0.
The actual initialization of the variables is done inside
mythread_sync() macro. Clang doesn't seem to see that
the initialization code inside the macro is always executed.
This affects only 32-bit x86 builds. x86-64 is OK as is.
I still cannot easily test this myself. The reporter has tested
this and it passes the tests included in the CMake build and
performance is good: raw CRC64 is 2-3 times faster than the
C version of the slice-by-four method. (Note that liblzma doesn't
include a MSVC-compatible version of the 32-bit x86 assembly code
for the slice-by-four method.)
Thanks to Iouri Kharon for figuring out a fix, testing, and
benchmarking.
This reverts commit 36edc65ab4cf10a131f239acbd423b4510ba52d5.
It was reported that it wasn't a good enough fix and MSVC
still produced (different kind of) bad code when building
for 32-bit x86 if optimizations are enabled.
Thanks to Iouri Kharon.
I haven't tested with MSVC myself and there doesn't seem to be
information about the problem online, so I'm relying on the bug report.
Thanks to Iouri Kharon for the bug report and the patch.
common/index.h is needed by liblzma internally and tests. common.h will
include and define many things that are not needed by the tests. Also,
this prevents include order problems because common.h will redefine
LZMA_API resulting in a warning.
5.5.0alpha won't be released, it's just to mark that
the branch is not for stable 5.4.x.
Once again there is no API/ABI stability for new features
in devel versions. The major soname won't be bumped even
if API/ABI of new features breaks between devel releases.
Using return_if_error on lzma_lzma_lclppb_encode was improper because
return_if_error is expecting an lzma_ret value, but
lzma_lzma_lclppb_encode returns a boolean. This could result in
lzma_microlzma_encoder, which would be misleading for applications.
