On 6/3/2020 2:27 PM, Nicolas George wrote: > Paul B Mahol (12020-06-03): >> Why so? Just to be beaten again by same person which would reject this >> same patch. > > I was not the first one to reject a patch because in introduces APIs or > fields without users, but I think it is a good policy. > >>> "Number of samples already sent through the link" seems more natural. >> I copy pasted sentence for frames above. Should it be changed too? > > I do not think it matters much. >> >> Above frame counters are not unsigned. Why to do different. > > If I had noticed it when they were added, I would have suggested they be > unsigned too. Signed arithmetic is more tricky, and compiler optimize it > less well: if something does not need to be negative, let it be > unsigned.
None of these fields are public or meant to be accessed by any of the other libraries, so they can be changed as needed. Feel free to make them unsigned if you think it's worth it or more robust. Just ensure you're not introducing bugs by doing so. A quick grep shows things like FFMAX(0, outlink->frame_count_in - 1). _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
