On 2015-02-27 04:36:41 +0530, Himangi Saraogi wrote:
> ---
> libavcodec/libx264.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/libavcodec/libx264.c b/libavcodec/libx264.c
> index 6388b6c..71c38cc 100644
> --- a/libavcodec/libx264.c
> +++ b/libavcodec/libx264.c
> @@ -235,11 +235,11 @@ static int X264_frame(AVCodecContext *ctx, AVPacket
> *pkt, const AVFrame *frame,
> }
> do {
> if (x264_encoder_encode(x4->enc, &nal, &nnal, frame? &x4->pic: NULL,
> &pic_out) < 0)
> - return -1;
> + return AVERROR_UNKNOWN;
>
> ret = encode_nals(ctx, pkt, nal, nnal);
> if (ret < 0)
> - return -1;
> + return ret;
> } while (!ret && !frame && x264_encoder_delayed_frames(x4->enc));
>
> pkt->pts = pic_out.i_pts;
> @@ -518,7 +518,7 @@ static av_cold int X264_init(AVCodecContext *avctx)
>
> x4->enc = x264_encoder_open(&x4->params);
> if (!x4->enc)
> - return -1;
> + return AVERROR_INVALIDDATA;
I think AVERROR_UNKNOWN or EINVAL is a better match here, I'd guess it's
mostly likely that one of the paramters is invalid. On the otherhand
that's just guessing and it could be anything but libx264 doesn't tell
us so UNKNOWN would be valid choice too.
Janne
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
