On 20 September 2013 10:28, Martin Storsjö <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Josh Allmann wrote: > >> On 20 September 2013 10:17, Martin Storsjö <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Luca Barbato wrote: >>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> I'm not so sure we support the other kind of array btw... >>> >>> >>> >>> Indeed, the handling of the other type of array seems wrong here. OBJECT >>> and >>> MIXEDARRAY should be pretty much the same, right? While ARRAY doesn't >>> have >>> string objects before each value object. >>> >> >> The ARRAY type is also supposed to be prefixed with the array length >> as an AMF int32, something the current code doesn't handle properly. > > > Doesn't it skip past 4 bytes for the ARRAY case? That part of it seems ok to > me. (IIRC the array length isn't strictly necessary since they're all still > terminated with some other marker as well, and the array length is > occasionally incorrect.) >
Ah yes, the end-of-object marker applies to arrays also. So the length prefix is indeed moot. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
