On 6/24/2019 10:08 PM, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
> ebml_read_num had a number of flaws:
>
> 1. The check for read errors/EOF was totally wrong. E.g. an EBML number
> beginning with the invalid 0x00 would be considered a read error,
> although it is just invalid data.
> 2. The check for read
ebml_read_num had a number of flaws:
1. The check for read errors/EOF was totally wrong. E.g. an EBML number
beginning with the invalid 0x00 would be considered a read error,
although it is just invalid data.
2. The check for read errors/EOF was done just once, after reading the
first byte of the
