On 8/24/2018 12:47 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> 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

I am completely lost in this discussion since i don't understand your
concern about this at all, so please tell me what you want me to do so
we can move on: Do i commit the patch as is, do i remove the assert line
altogether, or do i replace it with a normal check?
ffmpeg-devel mailing list

Reply via email to