On 14/01/13 14:29, Martin Storsjö wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Luca Barbato wrote: > >> On 14/01/13 10:43, Martin Storsjö wrote: >>> Without this, we'd signal a huge loss rate (due to wraparound) if >>> we had received one packet more than expected (that is, one seq >>> number sent twice). The code has a check for lost_interval <= 0, >>> but that doesn't do what was intended as long as the variable is >>> unsigned. >>> --- >>> libavformat/rtpdec.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> What happens if we get one more than INT_MAX though? > > Hopefully not too much - this mainly uses the difference between the > current and last value of 'received', and we should send RRs often > enough that the difference isn't all that big. > > This does require the 'received' field to be unsigned though, to wrap > around cleanly - I can do that in a separate patch later, it's not > directly related to this one.
Ok. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
