On 29.04.2015 20:32, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 29/04/15 17:36, Luca Barbato wrote: >> On 28/04/15 15:21, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: >>> I think it's better to change the function not to need 64 blocks, >>> as in the second patch I sent. >> >> Your patch assumes that the required block number information is fine >> and returning that partial decode is better than returning no data, I'm >> not sure about it and we already reject impossible block values. >> >> I do not know the format, so my assumption that the nblocks < 64 is >> impossible is as good as yours. >> > > And looks like you are right, the reference encoder can produce such files.
Thanks for checking. Best regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
