On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:22:49PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Vittorio Giovara > <vittorio.giov...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> I don't think the INVALIDDATA return will have the desired effect. > >>>> > >>>> I think you want return -1; > >>> > >>> This function is only called once and there the check is: > >>> if (sbr_hf_calc_npatches(ac, sbr) < 0) > >>> return -1; > >>> > >>> Thus returning AVERROR_INVALIDDATA works as well as -1. > >> > >> The fact that AVERROR_INVALIDDATA < 0 is a close call on 32 bit platforms. > >> > >> Still, it's not a new assumption in the code, so I'll grant you that. > > > > What do you mean by "A close call"? All AVERROR_* are negative by > > design, and they carry more information than a -1, so their increased > > usage is certainly welcome. > > The fact that it does not get propagated is a separate issue. > > Just that it's not obvious, and I was thinking error-prone, but now I > think it was just a reaction to it being non-obvious to me. > > So nothing relevant.
ok, so is the patch the correct solution or are the fields already invalid before this loop and should have been checked prior ? [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves? -- Diogenes of Sinope
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
