On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 05:41:40PM +0000, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> > ffmpeg | branch: master | Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> |
> > Sun Feb 14 15:22:47 2016 +0100| [0eb4092c1bf4d74c3b9a65fb0dbe4f90d3a316d0]
> > | committer: Michael Niedermayer
>
> [...]
>
> > + if (align < 4) {
> > + av_log(NULL, AV_LOG_ERROR, "Formats with a palette require a
> > minimum alignment of 4\n");
> > + return AVERROR(EINVAL);
> > + }
>
> This is a silent API break. You changed behavior of a function in such a way
> that functioning code no longer works.yes, i posted a patch that would have maintained API more but people did not like it peer review said: "> I'd totally expect each line _and_ the start of the palette to be > aligned to the requested slignment. It's what I would expect as well." so i did that and i added the check above to catch the case where this results in unaligned AVFrame. dependig on how the AVFrame is used that can be a problem or can also be no problem. should i remove this check ? (this would be undefined behavior if someone accesses the palette with int*, i belive there is some code in our codebase which does this ...) should i replace it by a warning ? should i revert the whole patchset (that will result in generated raw rgb files to be invalid for nut, avi and mov) should i revert this and apply the other patchset that maintains API more but that was rejected by people ? do you suggest something else ? also iam very happy to leave this to others, if someone else wants to take over, its rather difficult to implement this in a way that makes everyone happy. [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. -- Plato
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
