On Mon, 25 Dec 2023, Anton Khirnov wrote:
Quoting Zhao Zhili (2023-12-25 10:27:59)
> On Dec 25, 2023, at 16:38, Anton Khirnov <an...@khirnov.net> wrote:
>
> Quoting Kacper Michajlow (2023-12-24 11:41:52)
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 14:57, Anton Khirnov <an...@khirnov.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Quoting Andreas Rheinhardt (2023-12-22 14:48:45)
>>>> Avoids relocations.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Rheinhardt <andreas.rheinha...@outlook.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Maybe mention that it's not needed after
>>> acf63d5350adeae551d412db699f8ca03f7e76b9.
>>
>> This is not the only user of this API, no?
>>
>> I have a question for my own curiosity. This is ABI (and API) breaking
>> change,
>
> It is not. This item was not guaranteed to be set, which was actually
> the reason I wrote the patch that this one refers to.
There is no problem to relax a restriction inside libavutil. However, since
there is
no explicit documentation on whether item_name can be null or not, user may make
incorrect assumptions and depend on item_name not being null. I don’t think
break
user’s code suddenly is a good idea, although we can say it’s break since the
beginning.
My point is that the restriction never existed. There were always
AVClass instances that did not set that pointer. There were fewer of
them, but they did exist.
I could just as easily make the argument that these AVClasses were not
following the documentation. AVClass is documented in avutil/log.h. We
should document if a field can be NULL, this was clearly not done here.
Because of that, we should assume what most of the codebase assumed.
Considering the amount of stuff this breaks, this patch should be
reverted, AVClass->item_name deperecated, item_name_func added and
explicitly documented that it may be NULL.
Regards,
Marton
_______________________________________________
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".
