Quoting Andreas Rheinhardt (2021-12-17 02:55:43) > Anton Khirnov: > > This is a first step towards making muxers more independent from the > > rest of the code. > > --- > > fftools/Makefile | 11 +- > > fftools/ffmpeg.c | 273 ++-------------------------------------- > > fftools/ffmpeg.h | 10 ++ > > fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c | 293 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 4 files changed, 320 insertions(+), 267 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c > > > > diff --git a/fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c b/fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000..e7c6ddd8f8 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/fftools/ffmpeg_mux.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,293 @@ > > +/* > > + * This file is part of FFmpeg. > > + * > > + * FFmpeg is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > > + * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public > > + * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either > > + * version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. > > + * > > + * FFmpeg is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > > + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU > > + * Lesser General Public License for more details. > > + * > > + * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public > > + * License along with FFmpeg; if not, write to the Free Software > > + * Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA > > 02110-1301 USA > > + */ > > + > > +#include <stdio.h> > > +#include <string.h> > > + > > +#include "libavformat/avformat.h" > > +#include "libavformat/avio.h" > > + > > +#include "libavcodec/packet.h" > > + > > +#include "libavutil/fifo.h" > > +#include "libavutil/intreadwrite.h" > > +#include "libavutil/log.h" > > +#include "libavutil/mem.h" > > +#include "libavutil/timestamp.h" > > + > > +#include "ffmpeg.h" > > + > > These library headers are ordered reversely to our usual order. Is > this intended?
I am not aware of there being a usual order. So no, it's not. > (It has the advantage that e.g. missing lavu headers > in the lavf headers could be uncovered.) Won't make checkheaders also find that? -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ 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".
