On Saturday, 1 May 2021 1:27:44 AM AEST Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> On 30.04.2021 13:34, Brad Hards wrote:
> > + num_unregistered_sei = av_frame_num_side_data(frame,
> > AV_FRAME_DATA_SEI_UNREGISTERED); + for (int i = 0; i <
> > num_unregistered_sei; i++) {
>
> redefines i from above. Not sure if that's even valid.
Will fix.
> > + sd = av_frame_get_side_data_n(frame,
> > AV_FRAME_DATA_SEI_UNREGISTERED, i); + if (sd) {
> > + sei_data[sei_count].payloadSize = sd->size;
> > + sei_data[sei_count].payloadType =
> > SEI_TYPE_USER_DATA_UNREGISTERED; +
> > sei_data[sei_count].payload = av_memdup(sd->data, sd->size); +
> > sei_count ++;
> > + if (sei_count >= 8) {
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
>
> I'm not at all a fan of writing an arbitrary amount of stuff into a
> small fixed size array.
I don't understand this comment. The existing code defines a fixed size array,
and I don't want to change it because I couldn't find an authoritative source
as to why that size or approach. I assume it could be a hardware limitation on
at least some versions.
So I've tried to follow the existing approach, and ensure that the loop never
exceeds the available space by tracking the count.
Am I missing something?
Brad
_______________________________________________
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".
