On 16.12.2016 17:22, wm4 wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 03:32:07 +0100
> Andreas Cadhalpun <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Suggested-by: Rodger Combs <rodger.co...@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Cadhalpun <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com>
>> ---
>> libavutil/common.h | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/libavutil/common.h b/libavutil/common.h
>> index 8142b31..00b7504 100644
>> --- a/libavutil/common.h
>> +++ b/libavutil/common.h
>> @@ -99,6 +99,8 @@
>> #define FFSWAP(type,a,b) do{type SWAP_tmp= b; b= a; a= SWAP_tmp;}while(0)
>> #define FF_ARRAY_ELEMS(a) (sizeof(a) / sizeof((a)[0]))
>>
>> +#define FF_BAIL_ON_OVERFLOW(ctx, x) if (x) {av_log(ctx, AV_LOG_ERROR,
>> "Overflow check failed: " #x"\n"); return AVERROR_INVALIDDATA;}
>> +
>> /* misc math functions */
>>
>> #ifdef HAVE_AV_CONFIG_H
>
> Are you sure we need the message?
Yes, since such an overflow could just be a sign of a limitation in our
framework (think of bit_rate being int32_t) and does not necessarily mean
that the sample is invalid.
> It's quite ugly.
Do you have any suggestions for improving it?
> Also maybe call it "FF_RETURN_ON_OVERFLOW".
That sounds a bit better, so changed locally.
Best regards,
Andreas
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
