On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:35:48 +0200, Stefano Sabatini <[email protected]> wrote: > [adding libav-devel to recipients, as this concerns API/ABI compatibility] > > On date Saturday 2011-04-16 19:12:34 +0200, Nicolas George encoded: > > Le septidi 27 germinal, an CCXIX, Stefano Sabatini a écrit : > > > * implement AVERROR_EOF as a libav* specific error code, rather than > > > mask the EPIPE POSIX error code which has a different semantics > > > > > > * implement AVERROR_INVALIDDATA as a libav* specific error code (already > > > implemented but it was controversial), and fix the > > > AVERROR(EINVAL)/AVERROR_INVALIDDATA conflict > > > > Seems reasonable. > > > > > * drop AVERROR_NUMEXPECTED (not very important, but I believe it is a > > > too much specific error code, so I'd prefer to replace it with > > > AVERROR(EINVAL) > > > > A more generic AVERROR_SYNTAX could be possible too. > > > > > |bumping it to 51 will changes the codes returned by all libs using > > > libavutil > > > |all of them would need to bump major. > > > |i dont think this is reasonable, thus we should undo all error > > > redefinitions > > > |before they become real and debian burns you at the stake > > > > > > but I don't think this is a real issue (assuming that all the libav* > > > major versions are bumped at the same time), and this is my argument: > > > > I think the point is precisely in your parentheses: changing the error codes > > requires bumping the major version for all the libraries, not just > > libavutil. > > > > > One thought in passing: If the error codes get changed, it may be a good > > idea to adapt the definition of AVERROR(errno) to something like: > > > > #define AVERROR(e) (-(e) - 1) > > > > This would have the benefit that when some old piece of code returns -1 > > instead of a meaningful error code, it would not displayed as "Permission > > denied" or whatever errno code is 1 on this particular platform. > > I'd prefer to just return the negated POSIX error code, and avoid > other weird mapping. > > Possibly we could introduce an AVERROR_GENERIC code and replace -1 > with it, not that I like the idea too much. > > In attachment an updated patchset.
The first three look sane to me, not sure about the point of the last, but if you think it's better... -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
