On 12/05/2019 14:47, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> fre 2019-05-10 klockan 08:50 -0700 skrev Baptiste Coudurier:
>> ...
>> + skip_bits(&gb, 2); // reserved_zero_2bits
>> + sps->level_idc = get_bits(&gb, 8);
>> + sps->id = get_ue_golomb(&gb);
>> +
>> + if (sps->profile_idc == 100 || sps->profile_idc == 110 ||
>> + sps->profile_idc == 122 || sps->profile_idc == 244 ||
>> sps->profile_idc == 44 ||
>> + sps->profile_idc == 83 || sps->profile_idc == 86 ||
>> sps->profile_idc == 118 ||
>> + sps->profile_idc == 128 || sps->profile_idc == 138 ||
>> sps->profile_idc == 139 ||
>> + sps->profile_idc == 134) {
>
> Maybe put these in a table instead? I guess it works this way, just a
> bit verbose. They could do with sorting, unless there's a specific
> reason for this ordering
This is exactly how it appears in the standard (see section 7.3.2.1.1). IMO
it's better to match that exactly than to do something else.
- Mark
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
