id	summary	reporter	owner	description	type	status	priority	milestone	component	version	resolution	keywords	cc
727	mismatch between the WD text and the HM software on derivation of spatial merging candidates	asimpson		"In 8.5.2.1.2 the text specifies a number of conditions for inclusion of a candidate in the merge list such as:

–	(xP >> (log2_parallel_merge_level_minus2 + 2)) is equal to (xN >> (log2_parallel_merge_level_minus2 + 2)) and (yP >> (log2_parallel_merge_level_minus2 + 2)) is equal to (yN >> (log2_parallel_merge_level_minus2 + 2)).


–	singleMCLFlag is equal to 0 and PartMode of the current prediction unit is PART_2NxN or PART_2NxnU or PART_2NxnD and partIdx is equal to 1 and N is equal to B1

–	singleMCLFlag is equal to 0 and PartMode of the current prediction unit is PART_Nx2N or PART_nLx2N or PART_nRx2N and partIdx is equal to 1 and N is equal to A1


–	N is equal to B2 and the prediction units covering luma location ( xA1, yA1 ) and luma location ( xN, yN ) have the same motion vectors and the same reference indices


In the software if the ""parallel merge"" test results in a particular candidate N not being added to the list then that N is not tested for equivalence when a subsequent candidate is considered. 

However if a particular candidate N is not added as the current PU is the second partition of a 2 partition CU then that N is still used for the equivalence test when a subsequent candidate is considered. 
See TComDataCU::getInterMergeCandidates()

Intuitively it would seem that a candidate should not be excluded from the list just because it has the same MV and RefIdx as another candidate that was not added to the list.

"	defect	closed	minor	HM-9.0	HM	HM-8.0	fixed		fbossen ksuehring davidf jct-vc@…