James Almer:
> On 4/7/2024 6:53 PM, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
>> James Almer:
>>> On 4/7/2024 5:39 PM, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote:
>>>> It is perfectly legal for users to use a custom layout
>>>> that is equivalent to a supported native one.
>>>
>>> Is that really the case? FFCodec.p.ch_layouts[] has a list of native
>>> ones, and the generic encode.c code will reject anything not in it.
>>>
>>
>> This is not true. It allows everything that is equivalent (in the
>> av_channel_layout_compare() sense) to one of the channel layouts in
>> AVCodec.ch_layouts. This means that if ch_layout.u.map[i].id is strictly
>> ascending for 0 <= i <nb_channels and < 64, then it is equivalent to the
>> native channel layout with the same nb_channels whose mask is the
>> bitwise or of all (1ULL << ch_layout.u.map[i].id).
>
> Right, misread av_channel_layout_compare() as rejecting layouts that
> were not the same order.
>
>>
>>> I guess the encode.c check could be improved with
>>> av_channel_layout_retype().
>>>
>>
>> ch_layout is not supposed to be set by lavc for encoders.
>
> I didn't mean to set the layout for encoders, i meant it as a way for
> encode.c to compare input layouts with encoder-supported native layouts,
> because of my misunderstanding of how av_channel_layout_compare() behaved.
>
>>
>>>> In this case the union in AVChannelLayout is not an uint64_t mask,
>>>> but a pointer to a custom map.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Rheinhardt <andreas.rheinha...@outlook.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> libavcodec/ac3enc.c | 6 +-----
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/ac3enc.c b/libavcodec/ac3enc.c
>>>> index 7a6bcf7900..dc197c1517 100644
>>>> --- a/libavcodec/ac3enc.c
>>>> +++ b/libavcodec/ac3enc.c
>>>> @@ -2192,18 +2192,14 @@ av_cold int ff_ac3_encode_close(AVCodecContext
>>>> *avctx)
>>>> static av_cold int set_channel_info(AVCodecContext *avctx)
>>>> {
>>>> AC3EncodeContext *s = avctx->priv_data;
>>>> + uint64_t mask = av_channel_layout_subset(&avctx->ch_layout,
>>>> ~(uint64_t)0);
>>>
>>> Might as well use UINT64_MAX.
>>>
>>
>> This is a bitfield, so I intentionally used a bit-operation.
>
> Then ~UINT64_C(0).
>
And the advantage of this is?
- Andreas
_______________________________________________
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".
