On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 07:26:01AM +0200, wm4 wrote: [...] > > > it also violates the API IMO, but thats not so much the point > > It does not. I created the fucking API. > > > The data the user application wants to attach to a AVFrame for the > > user applications extrenal purposes > > and > > The data libavcodec wants to attach for internal (hwaccel) use. > > > > Are 2 distinct things. You can have none, either one or both theres > > no relation between them. > > AVFrame does not dictate a use for this field. The use of the field is > determined by the owner of the AVFrame, which is libavcodec while the > frame is in libavcodec. > > How often did I repeat this and how often did you not understand this?
opaque_ref is defined to have the same semantics as opaque. opaque definitly does NOT have the semantics you write about in this thread. opaque is a field that exists for a very long time I think you and Libav misunderstood the opaque field semantics Just think about it, the opaque field existed when the *frame structure was defined in libavcodec. The user of libavcodec is NOT libavcodec This field was never intended to be used by any of our libs to store their private data. It was the move of AVFrame to libavutil that made the documentation of opaque ambigous and this likely lead to this misunderstanding -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. -- Socrates
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
