On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:36:21PM +0100, Mark Thompson wrote:
> On 02/06/16 22:00, Matthieu Bouron wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 07:13:39PM +0100, Mark Thompson wrote:
> >> ---
> >> ... something like this.
> >>
> >> libavcodec/vaapi_encode_h264.c | 6 ++++++
> >> libavcodec/vaapi_encode_h265.c | 6 ++++++
> >> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/libavcodec/vaapi_encode_h264.c
> >> b/libavcodec/vaapi_encode_h264.c
> >> index 0a99bb1..019ed1f 100644
> >> --- a/libavcodec/vaapi_encode_h264.c
> >> +++ b/libavcodec/vaapi_encode_h264.c
> >> @@ -731,6 +731,12 @@ static av_cold int
> >> vaapi_encode_h264_init_constant_bitrate(AVCodecContext *avctx
> >> int hrd_buffer_size;
> >> int hrd_initial_buffer_fullness;
> >>
> >> + if (avctx->bit_rate >= 1u << 31) {
> >
> > Wouldn't INT32_MAX be more aproriate ?
>
> Hmm. No preference - I went for 1u << 31 to match the 2^31 in the error
> message, but maybe INT32_MAX makes the code constraint slightly clearer.
IMHO, I think it's clearer to use INT32_MAX but as you are the maintainer
of those encoders, it's up to you to decide.
[...]
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
