John Stebbins wrote:
On 08/25/2011 07:45 PM, John Stebbins wrote:
As we discussed on IRC this morning, this makes the value of repeat_pict
returned
by the parsers the same as the value returned by the decoders.
The parser was returning a value for repeat_pict that was the
actual number of
Hi,
On 08/26/2011 05:48 AM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
John Stebbins wrote:
On 08/25/2011 07:45 PM, John Stebbins wrote:
As we discussed on IRC this morning, this makes the value of repeat_pict
returned
by the parsers the same as the value returned by the decoders.
The parser was
On 08/26/2011 05:43 PM, John Stebbins wrote:
Hi,
On 08/26/2011 05:48 AM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
int ticks = st-st-codec-ticks_per_frame + (ist-st-parser ?
ist-st-parser-repeat_pict : 0);
Well, after all that, I did some more code reading and spelunking of mailing
list archives and
Hi,
On 08/26/2011 12:55 PM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
On 08/26/2011 05:43 PM, John Stebbins wrote:
Hi,
On 08/26/2011 05:48 AM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
int ticks = st-st-codec-ticks_per_frame + (ist-st-parser ?
ist-st-parser-repeat_pict : 0);
Well, after all that, I did some more code
As we discussed on IRC this morning, this makes the value of repeat_pict
returned
by the parsers the same as the value returned by the decoders.
The parser was returning a value for repeat_pict that was the
actual number of repeats + 1.
Passes fate with the exception of 1 pre-existing failure
On 08/25/2011 07:45 PM, John Stebbins wrote:
As we discussed on IRC this morning, this makes the value of repeat_pict
returned
by the parsers the same as the value returned by the decoders.
The parser was returning a value for repeat_pict that was the
actual number of repeats + 1.
