On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Lukasz Marek wrote:
On 03.04.2016 21:37, Marton Balint wrote:
Insertion of silence was a bit broken since
df34b700981de606ca4847e1ed0bfdf9ac3e9104 because the info whether or not the
source buffer supposed to be silence must be kept between callbacks. Failing to
do so
On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 09:37:58PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
Insertion of silence was a bit broken since
df34b700981de606ca4847e1ed0bfdf9ac3e9104 because the info whether or not the
source buffer supposed to be silence must be kept between
On 03.04.2016 21:37, Marton Balint wrote:
> Insertion of silence was a bit broken since
> df34b700981de606ca4847e1ed0bfdf9ac3e9104 because the info whether or not the
> source buffer supposed to be silence must be kept between callbacks. Failing
> to
> do so causes rogue samples from the last
On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 09:37:58PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
> Insertion of silence was a bit broken since
> df34b700981de606ca4847e1ed0bfdf9ac3e9104 because the info whether or not the
> source buffer supposed to be silence must be kept between callbacks. Failing
> to
> do so causes rogue
Insertion of silence was a bit broken since
df34b700981de606ca4847e1ed0bfdf9ac3e9104 because the info whether or not the
source buffer supposed to be silence must be kept between callbacks. Failing to
do so causes rogue samples from the last buffer to be presented, I guess even a
crash can occur
