>hey at all, my first Post on this List,
>
>I announce here a quick and dirty Solution to compile transcode 1.1.0
>rc3 on Systems with x264 core 65
[...]
>encode_x264.c:215: Fehler: struct <anonymous> hat kein Element namens
>b_bidir_me
>encode_x264.c:215: Fehler: struct <anonymous> hat kein Element namens
>b_bidir_me
>encode_x264.c:219: Fehler: struct <anonymous> hat kein Element namens
>b_bframe_rdo
>encode_x264.c:219: Fehler: struct <anonymous> hat kein Element namens
>b_bframe_rdo
Thanks for reporting this. It looks like the parameters have been merged
into the subq parameter, so they're no longer settable independently:
new_subq <= 4: old_subq (same), !bidir_me, !brdo
new_subq == 5: old_subq 5, bidir_me, !brdo
new_subq == 6: old_subq 6, bidir_me, !brdo
new_subq == 7: old_subq 6, bidir_me, brdo
new_subq == 8: old_subq 7, bidir_me, brdo
new_subq == 9: old_subq 7, bidir_me, brdo, plus extra quality
Since all three parameters change meaning between versions 64 and 65,
here's what I'm doing:
- Accept all three, and accept subq values 1-9 instead of the current 1-7.
- For versions <= 64, silently clamp subq to the range 1-7.
- For versions >= 65, report a warning if bidir_me or brdo are used (but
continue processing anyway, ignoring the options).
Francesco, does this look okay to you? I've gone ahead and committed a
patch to this effect, but feel free to revise. (In particular, I wasn't
sure whether we should warn that those options will be obsolete in later
x264 versions.)
P.S. Yes, I'm still alive -- I just had an 11-month-long non-maskable
interrupt from work to deal with. (:
--Andrew Church
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://achurch.org/
