On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 08:24:52PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > On 08.07.2015 18:07, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 07:24:13AM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > >> - last of all, I want to remind you guys that we haven't done a very > >> thorough code analysis to see if this can actually be triggered. As an > >> example, look at commit 458446acfa1441d283dacf9e6e545beb083b8bb0. Before > >> that, vp8 files smaller than 16x16 or vp9 files smaller than 64x64 could > >> cause aborts. The vp9 ones I noticed due to some fate files being so small. > >> I doubt you'll ever find such vp8 files, but they're valid. > >> > >> Let's not add silly checks to replace other silly ones. > > Do you have any vp9 files triggering this assert? > > > if people prefer i ca revert b8c438e7623644edcfdb508c946a723a3b79b893 > > or add a check for stride == 0 > > > > what do people prefer ? > > The assert can be triggered by the h264 decoder: > mc_dir_part in libavcodec/h264_mb.c calls the 16 bit variant of > emulated_edge_mc and thus the assert is triggered due to the > sizeof(pixel) factor, even though block_w is smaller than buf_linesize. > > If that's valid behavior of the h264 decoder, then the assert should > be removed, but if on the other hand this is a bug in the h264 > decoder, then that should be fixed and the assert remain.
just posted a patch which should fix these assertion failures [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. -- Voltaire
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
