Andreas Rheinhardt:
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Rheinhardt <andreas.rheinha...@outlook.com>
> ---
> What is actually the reason that we stick to this C90 rule?
> Is it because of compability with ancient compilers? (Given that we
> already require several C99 features, I doubt that there are compilers
> which would fail if we stopped adhering to the
> declaration-before-statement rule.) Or is it because it is presumed that
> it improves clarity and readability?
>
I pushed this to fix the warning, although I'd like to hear other
peoples' opinion on whether the warning should no longer be enabled.
> fftools/ffmpeg.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fftools/ffmpeg.c b/fftools/ffmpeg.c
> index e0f2fe138f..6f6e002604 100644
> --- a/fftools/ffmpeg.c
> +++ b/fftools/ffmpeg.c
> @@ -4234,10 +4234,11 @@ static int get_input_packet(InputFile *f, AVPacket
> **pkt)
> float scale = f->rate_emu ? 1.0 : f->readrate;
> for (i = 0; i < f->nb_streams; i++) {
> InputStream *ist = input_streams[f->ist_index + i];
> + int64_t stream_ts_offset, pts, now;
> if (!ist->nb_packets) continue;
> - int64_t stream_ts_offset = FFMAX(ist->first_dts !=
> AV_NOPTS_VALUE ? ist->first_dts : 0, file_start);
> - int64_t pts = av_rescale(ist->dts, 1000000, AV_TIME_BASE);
> - int64_t now = (av_gettime_relative() - ist->start)*scale +
> stream_ts_offset;
> + stream_ts_offset = FFMAX(ist->first_dts != AV_NOPTS_VALUE ?
> ist->first_dts : 0, file_start);
> + pts = av_rescale(ist->dts, 1000000, AV_TIME_BASE);
> + now = (av_gettime_relative() - ist->start) * scale +
> stream_ts_offset;
> if (pts > now)
> return AVERROR(EAGAIN);
> }
>
_______________________________________________
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".
