On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 07:40:38AM -0800, jon morley wrote: > Hi Clément, >
Hi,
> That is a good point! I am attaching an additional patch to remove those
> cases even before entering the mod test loop.
>
> Now the logic should look like this:
>
> static int check_fps(int fps)
> {
> if (fps <= 0) return -1;
>
> int i;
> static const int supported_fps_bases[] = {24, 25, 30};
You can't put statements before declarations, some compilers will choke on
it.
Also, please squash it with the previous patch since it wasn't applied
yet.
>
> for (i = 0; i < FF_ARRAY_ELEMS(supported_fps_bases); i++)
> if (fps % supported_fps_bases[i] == 0)
> return 0;
> return -1;
> }
>
> I am still really curious to know if switching to this division (modulo)
> test breaks the "spirit" of check_fps. I could not find anywhere that
> benefited from the explicit list the method currently used, but that doesn't
> mean it isn't out there.
I'm more concerned about how the rest of the code will behave. Typically,
av_timecode_adjust_ntsc_framenum2() could benefit from some improvements
(checking if fps % 30, and deducing drop_frames and frames_per_10mins
accordingly) if you allow such thing. Then you might need to adjust
check_timecode() as well to allow the drop frame for the other % 30.
>
> Thanks,
> Jon
>
[...]
Note: please do not top post on this mailing list, it is considered rude.
Regards,
--
Clément B.
pgpyZ3EX7fhOg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
