On 11/1/2023 10:56 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
Jan Ekström (12023-11-01):
So my question is: Does this test case not improve for you after you
have applied these patches? Or are you speaking of a separate problem
which is bad both in master as well as after these patches have been
applied?
This is the test case Paul posted yesterday (except you had the
politeness to de-script it) and I used to see that it does not fix the
issue.
Can you be more specific? Do you not see the result Jan described? Do
you see something different? Or is it that you do see what he described,
but it's not a proper fix in your opinion as Paul's patch simply
prevents the leak from being triggered in his specific testcase?
Anyway, except in the simplest of cases, if a change does not include an
analysis of why the problem happens and how the change prevents it from
happening the simplest way, then it is not a bug fix, it is just dumb
luck. And most likely, the bug is not really gone, it just shifted to
not be triggered by the test case.
There is no such analysis in Paul's patches. If he can submit such an
analysis these patches can move forward. But based on my knowledge of
the activate code (I wrote it…) I am pretty certain this kind of bug
does not need a source with a single output to be switched to activate.
Regards,
_______________________________________________
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".
_______________________________________________
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".
