On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:21 AM, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 18:46:44 -0400 > Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Note that for the current SDL source code, 0 is always returned. >> Nevertheless, this makes the code more robust. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> >> --- >> ffplay.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/ffplay.c b/ffplay.c >> index 79f430d..c143e96 100644 >> --- a/ffplay.c >> +++ b/ffplay.c >> @@ -3814,7 +3814,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) >> SDL_EventState(SDL_SYSWMEVENT, SDL_IGNORE); >> SDL_EventState(SDL_USEREVENT, SDL_IGNORE); >> >> - SDL_EnableKeyRepeat(SDL_DEFAULT_REPEAT_DELAY, >> SDL_DEFAULT_REPEAT_INTERVAL); >> + if (SDL_EnableKeyRepeat(SDL_DEFAULT_REPEAT_DELAY, >> SDL_DEFAULT_REPEAT_INTERVAL) < 0) >> + av_log(NULL, AV_LOG_ERROR, "SDL_EnableKeyRepeat(): %s\n", >> SDL_GetError()); >> >> if (av_lockmgr_register(lockmgr)) { >> av_log(NULL, AV_LOG_FATAL, "Could not initialize lock manager!\n"); > > How does this make the code more "robust"?
If in future some limitations are placed on the repeat delay/repeat interval apart from nonnegativity, or if someone accidentally changes the repeat delay to e.g something dynamic and forgot to check that it is > 0, etc we would get a log message from ffplay allowing quick fixing of the issue. I don't know if "robust" is the right word for it, maybe "more complete"? > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel