On Sun, 23 Apr 2023, Anton Khirnov wrote:
Quoting Marton Balint (2023-04-23 12:05:51)
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023, Anton Khirnov wrote:
Quoting Marton Balint (2023-04-23 11:42:48)
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023, Anton Khirnov wrote:
Quoting Marton Balint (2023-04-23 11:12:38)
This seems like yet another clash of AVERROR_EOF error codes coming from
different places with different semantics. For
av_interleaved_write_frame(), AVERROR_EOF is an error condition, so
file encoding should fail,
Why should it fail? I'd think a muxer returning EOF is the way to signal
non-error muxer-side termination.
That would be an API change. AVERROR_EOF is not special in any way from
other error codes for av_interleaved_write_frame. A muxer cannot signal
non-error muxer side termination with existing API.
All error codes (should) have a specific meaning. I cannot think of a
good reason for a muxer to return AVERROR_EOF to signal an error.
Can you?
Previously, we expeced users to treat any negative error code as error for
av_interleaved_write_frame().
I don't think we expect the users to do anything in particular in
responce to av_interleaved_write_frame() return codes. The doxy says
that it returns a negative error code on error, but the caller can
freely decide what to do with that information - this includes ignoring
it.
I don't understand. A good program propagates back error conditions to the
user, and not hides them silently.
This is what is documented. ffmpeg.c followed this approach. Don't you
see the slightest problem if we suddenly change this?
Seems to me you're mixing ffmpeg CLI and lavf behavior. My claim is
entirely from the point of view of the CLI, and is this: if the muxer
returns AVERROR_EOF, then it should be treated as normal termination.
I disagree. If ffmpeg.c ignores a specific muxer error code for whatever
reason, that is a bug. At least it should fail if -xerror is given.
This is similar to how other components behave - e.g. a (bitstream)
filter can at any time decide to return EOF to its downstream,
terminating a stream even though more input is available.
And for bitstream filters it is properly documented, and callers were
always expected to act accordingly.
Regards,
Marton
_______________________________________________
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".
