I do not recall exactly... I would say that the correct version should be
if (!JPWL_ASSUME) return false; meaning that once JPWL_ASSUME=1 the code will pass over such errors and try to decode anyway (just paired with the other JPWL_ASSUME on line 1112). Fixes #596
This commit is contained in:
parent
26dcb7c125
commit
98324bbd6b
|
@ -1296,7 +1296,7 @@ opj_bool jpwl_check_tile(opj_j2k_t *j2k, opj_tcd_t *tcd, int tileno) {
|
||||||
opj_event_msg(j2k->cinfo, JPWL_ASSUME ? EVT_WARNING : EVT_ERROR,
|
opj_event_msg(j2k->cinfo, JPWL_ASSUME ? EVT_WARNING : EVT_ERROR,
|
||||||
"JPWL: wrong x-cord of block origin %d => x-prec is (%d, %d)\n",
|
"JPWL: wrong x-cord of block origin %d => x-prec is (%d, %d)\n",
|
||||||
block->x0, prec->x0, prec->x1);
|
block->x0, prec->x0, prec->x1);
|
||||||
if (!JPWL_ASSUME || JPWL_ASSUME)
|
if (!JPWL_ASSUME)
|
||||||
return OPJ_FALSE;
|
return OPJ_FALSE;
|
||||||
};
|
};
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue