On 11.12.2016 10:04, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun > <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On 10.12.2016 18:40, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: >>> and just adds extra burden when these limits are >>> changed/improved (say by making them pixfmt aware as discussed in >>> another thread, which this function could never know). >> >> There is no extra burden, because av_image_check_size would have to >> be changed in that case anyway to accept the largest value valid >> for any pixel format. >> > > av_image_check_size2 was introduced by Michael now which works in the > context of a pix_fmt, which for many formats allows significantly > larger images then the old function (up to factor 4 larger)
Actually there is a factor of 64 between AV_PIX_FMT_MONOWHITE and AV_PIX_FMT_AYUV64LE, the latter of which amounts to the old limit. > I still see the problem that this option code does not know which > pix_fmt the numbers relate to and as such would keep the old limit in > place despite there being no technical reasons for it. And I still think that av_image_check_size should be changed to accept the largest value valid for any pixel format (once every place needing stricter limits is switched to the pixel format sensitive check). Do you disagree with this or what is your point? Best regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
