Michael Niedermayer (12020-08-23):
> > + if (buf->pts == AV_NOPTS_VALUE) {
> > + av_log(ctx, AV_LOG_ERROR, "Frame without timestamp on input %d\n",
> > in_no);
> > + return AVERROR(EINVAL);
> > + }
>
> what if the timestamp is "AV_NOPTS_VALUE + 1" ?
> would that work or overflow ?I have no idea, I suspect it would overflow too. But "every single filter that needs valid timestamps" is not the place to protect against overflows caused by widely invalid timestamps. The framework is; I have considered going at it, some kind of "require_valid_pts" flag on input pads, but it is not my priority right now. This test is already too much, it should be part of the framework, but it is very simple and protects against a real current bug. > also could the filter not use the previous frame pts + "duration" when a PTS > is unavailable (maybe that would make sense in some cases) (with a warning) Not really. First, again, an individual filter is not the place to implement an heuristic. Second, duration is not part of lavfi's working at all, and could not be without a significant redesign of many filters, and increasing the latency. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
