On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:35:41AM +0100, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Attached patch tries to address ticket #4947.
> (only tested with libx264)
>
> Please review, Carl Eugen
why should the errors be conditional?
is there a case where the user wants her parameters to be ignored?
[...]
Am 28.01.2016 18:00 schrieb "Derek Buitenhuis" :
>
> On 1/28/2016 10:35 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > Attached patch tries to address ticket #4947.
> > (only tested with libx264)
>
> I don't think STRICT_STD_COMPLIANCE is the correct thing to use here.
>
> It looks
Michael Niedermayer niedermayer.cc> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:35:41AM +0100, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Attached patch tries to address ticket #4947.
> > (only tested with libx264)
> >
> > Please review, Carl Eugen
>
> why should the errors be conditional?
Because
On 1/28/2016 10:35 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> Attached patch tries to address ticket #4947.
> (only tested with libx264)
I don't think STRICT_STD_COMPLIANCE is the correct thing to use here.
It looks like explode mode is better suited.
- Derek
___
Nicolas George nsup.org> writes:
> > +if (avctx->strict_std_compliance >= FF_COMPLIANCE_STRICT)
> > +return AVERROR_INVALIDDATA;
>
> AVERROR(EINVAL) seems more correct. Same below.
Changed locally.
Thank you, Carl Eugen
___