On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 04:01:09PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > On 04/27/2013 03:10 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > --- a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c
> > > +++ b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c
> > > @@ -782,9 +782,9 @@ int ff_h264_decode_ref_pic_marking(H264Context *h,
> GetBitContext *gb,
> > >
> > > if (first_slice && mmco_index != -1) {
> > > h->mmco_index = mmco_index;
> > > - } else if (!first_slice && mmco_index >= 0 &&
> > > - (mmco_index != h->mmco_index ||
> > > - (i = check_opcodes(h->mmco, mmco_temp, mmco_index))))
> {
> > > + } else if ((i = check_opcodes(h->mmco, mmco_temp, mmco_index)) ||
> > > + !first_slice && mmco_index >= 0 &&
> > > + mmco_index != h->mmco_index) {
> > > av_log(h->avctx, AV_LOG_ERROR,
> > > "Inconsistent MMCO state between slices [%d, %d,
> %d]\n",
> > > mmco_index, h->mmco_index, i);
> >
> > what happens to check_opcodes when mmc_index is negative?
>
> I don't know, but that seems to be immaterial: before a negative mmco_index
> was one of the conditions that triggered the invocation of check_opcodes().
>
>
I can clearly see a check there for mmco_index >= 0 which was before the
invocation...
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
