On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:08:06 +0100, Rémi Denis-Courmont <r...@remlab.net> wrote: > On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 23:27:48 +0100, Anton Khirnov <an...@khirnov.net> > wrote: > > We will likely want to add new fields to it in the future, so this is > > needed to avoid breaking ABI. > > Should this not take a pix_fmt parameter and support all hwaccels? Or > should there be one of these for each hwaccel? Or do we only care about > VDPAU (fine with me :-D)? >
I would have a separate constructor for each hwaccel context. You call them from different code anyway, so there's really nothing gained by using a single function for all of them. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
