On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Paul B Mahol <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 3/20/12, Uoti Urpala <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 20:55 -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > >> Shouldn't avpkt->size be unsigned also? > > > > Unsigned types cause problems for normal code. Making the type unsigned > > would break tests like > > "if (size_left - avpkt->size < min_left)" > > I do not consider that normal code.
Why not? Even if it seems strange to you it is well defined behavior and I don't think we should go changing it lightly. Furthermore av_malloc(size) fails when size > INT_MAX so we can't even allocate data for these new jumbo packets. > > > If you want to support packets larger than 2 GiB, then a 64-bit signed > > type would be a better idea. > > > > BTW the casts in the original patch are redundant; the function return > > value is automatically cast to the return type of the function. Unless > > the intent is to emphasize that sizes larger than 4 GiB won't work. > _______________________________________________ > libav-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
