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 ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel