On 11/04/2019 04:10, James Almer wrote:
> On 4/10/2019 3:30 PM, James Almer wrote:
>> The spec defines the valid range of values to be INT32_MIN + 1 to INT32_MAX,
>> inclusive.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> A good example of why making offsets and sizes of structs like this tied to
>> the
>> ABI is not a good idea.
>>
>> libavcodec/h264_ps.h | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/libavcodec/h264_ps.h b/libavcodec/h264_ps.h
>> index e967b9cbcf..9014326dfb 100644
>> --- a/libavcodec/h264_ps.h
>> +++ b/libavcodec/h264_ps.h
>> @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ typedef struct SPS {
>> uint32_t num_units_in_tick;
>> uint32_t time_scale;
>> int fixed_frame_rate_flag;
>> - short offset_for_ref_frame[256]; // FIXME dyn aloc?
>> + int32_t offset_for_ref_frame[256];
>
> The doxy for get_se_golomb() doesn't mention the range of values it can
> handle, but seeing there's also a get_se_golomb_long(), I guess the
> relevant line in h264_ps.c should now use the latter instead?
I think it's correct to do that. Seems highly unlikely anyone would ever hit
it outside a conformance-checking context, though - using anything other than
pic_order_cnt_type 0 for nontrivial reference structures is madness.
>> int bitstream_restriction_flag;
>> int num_reorder_frames;
>> int scaling_matrix_present;
There are some other fields with int32_t range which are using get_se_golomb()
- e.g. offset_for_non_ref_pic. I guess they should use get_se_golomb_long() as
above. They're also plain ints - do they want to be explicitly int32_t?
- Mark
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
