sön 2019-05-12 klockan 18:03 +0100 skrev Mark Thompson:
> 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.
Fair enough
/Tomas
_______________________________________________
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".
