On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 02:09:59PM +0100, Vitor Sessak wrote:
> On 03/18/2012 08:43 AM, Kostya Shishkov wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:16:01PM +0100, Vitor Sessak wrote:
> >>On 03/17/2012 08:54 AM, Kostya Shishkov wrote:
> >>>$subj
> >>>
> >>>ralfdata.h is attached separately because it's less interesting and it's 
> >>>more
> >>>than 600k in plain form (yet it's still smaller that 
> >>>libavcodec/twinvq_data.h).
> >>
> >>A couple more comments:
> >>
> >>>+}
> >>>+
> >>>+static int decode_block(AVCodecContext *avctx, GetBitContext *gb, int 
> >>>block_no)
> >>>+{
> >>
> >>block_no looks unused.
> >
> >indeed
> >
> >>>+    block_pointer = src      + table_bytes + 2;
> >>>+    bytes_left    = src_size - table_bytes - 2;
> >>>+    ctx->sample_offset = 0;
> >>>+    for (i = 0; i<  ctx->num_blocks; i++) {
> >>>+        if (bytes_left<  ctx->block_size[i]) {
> >>>+            av_log(avctx, AV_LOG_ERROR, "I'm pedaling backwards\n");
> >>>+            break;
> >>>+        }
> >>>+        init_get_bits(&gb, block_pointer, ctx->block_size[i] * 8);
> >>>+        if (decode_block(avctx,&gb, i)<  0) {
> >>>+            av_log(avctx, AV_LOG_ERROR, "Sir, I got carsick in your 
> >>>office\n");
> >>>+            break;
> >>>+        }
> >>>+        block_pointer += ctx->block_size[i];
> >>>+        bytes_left    -= ctx->block_size[i];
> >>>+    }
> >>>+
> >>>+    if (avctx->channels == 2) {
> >>>+        for (i = 0; i<  ctx->sample_offset; i++) {
> >>>+            *samples++ = ctx->channel_data[0][i];
> >>>+            *samples++ = ctx->channel_data[1][i];
> >>>+        }
> >>>+    } else {
> >>>+        for (i = 0; i<  ctx->sample_offset; i++)
> >>>+            *samples++ = ctx->channel_data[0][i];
> >>>+    }
> >>
> >>Is there a reason why not to do the int16 ->  int32 right after
> >>decoding the block? Wouldn't it allow to make the channel_data
> >>buffer smaller?
> >
> >It even would simplify things a bit, thanks for the suggestion.
> 
> Cool. Wouldn't now "block_data" be a more suitable name than
> "channel_data"? Besides that, no further comments from me.

Not sure about the naming - I see argument for and against calling it
block_data, channel_data, data or recon_data. So I just leave it as is.
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel

Reply via email to