On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:21:44PM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote: > On Tue, 28 May 2013, Kostya Shishkov wrote: > > >On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:25:58AM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote: > >>From: Michael Niedermayer <[email protected]> > >> > >>The existing implementation had little to do with VC1. > > > >http://26-26-54.hardwarebug.org/33 > > > >>This could be implemented by adjusting the reference frames > >>ithemselfs but that would make frame multi-threading difficult. > >>--- > >> libavcodec/vc1.c | 91 > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > >> libavcodec/vc1.h | 8 +++-- > >> libavcodec/vc1dec.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++--------- > >> 3 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > > > >In general looks WTFy. Maybe (I cannot say even with 80% certainity) it tries > >to deal with the fact there's intensity compensation defined in 8.3.8 and > >10.3.8 and it mandates that intensity-compensated reference frame is used for > >the subsequent fields/B-frames too but that's not obvious from the code or > >commit > >message. > > Ok, so what would be the right course of action? Patches 2-3 that > you ok'd depend pretty much on this change. Should I try to split > this patch into smaller pieces to get the parts that patches 2-3 > depend on separated, or would this one just be less WTFy with a > seriously amended commit message?
The latter would do for me. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
