On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 06:57:15PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 7/24/15, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 07:09:16AM +0000, Paul B Mahol wrote:
[...]
> >> +static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *inpicref)
> >> +{
> >> + AVFilterContext *ctx = inlink->dst;
> >> + FrameRateContext *s = ctx->priv;
> >> + AVFilterLink *outlink = ctx->outputs[0];
> >> +
> >> + // we have one new frame
> >> + s->pending_srce_frames++;
> >> +
> >> + if (inpicref->interlaced_frame)
> >> + av_log(ctx, AV_LOG_WARNING, "Interlaced frame found - the output
> >> will not be correct\n");
> >> +
> >> + // store the pointer to the new frame
> >> + av_frame_free(&s->srce[s->frst]);
> >> + s->srce[s->frst] = inpicref;
> >> +
> >> + if (!s->pending_end_frame && s->srce[s->crnt]) {
> >> + s->work = ff_get_video_buffer(outlink, outlink->w, outlink->h);
> >> + av_frame_copy_props(s->work, s->srce[s->crnt]);
> >> + set_work_frame_pts(ctx);
> >> +
> >> + s->pending_end_frame = 1;
> >> + } else {
> >> + set_srce_frame_dest_pts(ctx);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >
> >> +// if (!s->srce[s->crnt]) {
> >> +// av_dlog(ctx, "end_frame() no current frame\n");
> >> +// return;
> >> +// }
> >
> > the patch contains several outcomented pieces of code, is that
> > intended ?
>
> I can remove them if they seems to not be wanted.ive no oppinion on them being wanted or not, just noticed them and wondered [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB If a bugfix only changes things apparently unrelated to the bug with no further explanation, that is a good sign that the bugfix is wrong.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
