-
Aℓex Converse authored
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
7f56cb29