On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 10:45:52PM +0200, wm4 wrote: > On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:33:15 -0300 > James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 03/08/15 5:05 PM, wm4 wrote: > > > - we'll probably see a flood of commits changing random encoders to > > > this new function, for no reason (I'm looking forward to be proven > > > wrong) > > > > ff_alloc_packet() is marked as deprecated. I wouldn't find it odd at > > all if maintainers for different encoders make the switch if only to > > silence the warning. > > So if anyone does it, it most likely wont be "for no reason". > > OK, but why was ff_alloc_packet2() introduced?
because it was faster in the tests i did back then. it certainly is not faster for all encoders, and id like to find out for which encoders its better and for which its not and adjust them accordingly. Or if it turns out not to be usefull for any encoders anymore then it could also be dropped, or rather we could drop min_size and the "static" buffer alloc code but leave the context for av_log [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Frequently ignored answer#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker. User questions about the command line tools should be sent to the ffmpeg-user ML. And questions about how to use libav* should be sent to the libav-user ML.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
