2018-08-24 17:41 GMT+02:00, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com>: > On 8/24/2018 12:33 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> 2018-08-24 17:31 GMT+02:00, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com>: >>> On 8/24/2018 7:19 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>>> 2018-08-24 0:17 GMT+02:00, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com>: >>>>> Fixes assertion failures when trying to mux such streams. >>>> >>>> Shouldn't this be 1/2? >>>> >>>> And does this assert now for libavformat users that use >>>> new libopus (but not libavcodec) or do I misunderstand? >>> >>> This asserts for any stream with >= 80ms packets. It doesn't need to be >>> a direct encode from the libopus wrapper, since it can also happen >>> during be a remux. >> >> Doesn't this indicate that the assert is wrong? >> (That invalid input can trigger the assert) > > Invalid input (say, a packet reporting a frame size of the equivalent of > 1ms) would assert before and after this patch. Do you consider an assert > that triggers on invalid input to be wrong?
I wanted to write "definitely", I am a little puzzled now that you seem to disagree. Yes, I think so: It probably depends on the definition of "invalid" but I mean invalid data with valid api usage. Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
