Marton Balint:
>
>
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2020, James Almer wrote:
>
>> On 4/11/2020 6:35 PM, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
>>> James Almer:
On 4/11/2020 6:19 PM, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
> Currently uncoded frames (i.e. packets whose data actually points
> to an
> AVFrame) are not
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020, James Almer wrote:
On 4/11/2020 6:35 PM, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
James Almer:
On 4/11/2020 6:19 PM, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
Currently uncoded frames (i.e. packets whose data actually points to an
AVFrame) are not refcounted. As a consequence, calling
On 4/11/2020 6:35 PM, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
> James Almer:
>> On 4/11/2020 6:19 PM, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
>>> Currently uncoded frames (i.e. packets whose data actually points to an
>>> AVFrame) are not refcounted. As a consequence, calling av_packet_unref()
>>> on them will not free them,
James Almer:
> On 4/11/2020 6:19 PM, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
>> Currently uncoded frames (i.e. packets whose data actually points to an
>> AVFrame) are not refcounted. As a consequence, calling av_packet_unref()
>> on them will not free them, but may simply make sure that they leak by
>> losing
On 4/11/2020 6:19 PM, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
> Currently uncoded frames (i.e. packets whose data actually points to an
> AVFrame) are not refcounted. As a consequence, calling av_packet_unref()
> on them will not free them, but may simply make sure that they leak by
> losing the pointer to the
Currently uncoded frames (i.e. packets whose data actually points to an
AVFrame) are not refcounted. As a consequence, calling av_packet_unref()
on them will not free them, but may simply make sure that they leak by
losing the pointer to the frame.
This commit changes this by mimicking what is
