(uintptr_t)(ptr + x) == (uintptr_t)ptr + x for pointer types with sizeof(*ptr) == 1. This is not guaranteed by the spec (although I don't know a system where it is wrong).
Also: Do you ever add something nonzero to NULL pointers?
]]>I think that anyone who wants to be a maintainer needs to have a track record of good PRs, i.e. PRs that basically can be applied as-is, without multiple rounds of review and that do not cause regressions. Also the good PRs should be the clear majority of the PRs of the aspiring maintainer.
This is not so for toots: In #21787 you did not update FATE test results before submitting a PR; when you saw the runners falling, you then sent ever more updates that also did not pass instead of running FATE locally and updating the references. At one point (that commit is now 404) did you even intend to commit one of the test tool binaries.
Your chained ogg PR #20876 caused memleaks and needed to be reverted (as did your older "header packet skip" commit 574f634e49847e2225ee50013afebf0de03ef013).
#21813 and #21199 were based on misunderstandings of the underlying specifications and needed to be abandonded. The latter also would have introduced many more issues if applied (even if the understanding of the spec were correct).
In #20867 you wrongly claimed that dump_dictionary() in lavf/dump.c contained no special handling for language tags.
And your #22236, #21079 and #21187 also needed multiple rounds of review.
]]>Sponsored-by: Sovereign Tech Fund
Signed-off-by: Niklas Haas [email protected]