On 3/14/2021 6:10 PM, Marton Balint wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021, James Almer wrote:
On 3/14/2021 3:25 PM, Marton Balint wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021, James Almer wrote:
I guess the fundamental problem of WRAPPED_AVFRAME is that deep
copying it is not supported, but you don't exactly disallo
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021, James Almer wrote:
On 3/14/2021 3:25 PM, Marton Balint wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021, James Almer wrote:
I guess the fundamental problem of WRAPPED_AVFRAME is that deep
copying it is not supported, but you don't exactly disallow that by
using a size of 0, because the de
On 3/14/2021 3:25 PM, Marton Balint wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021, James Almer wrote:
Is using sizeof(AVFrame) an issue apart from that it is not part of
ABI? Is there an actual issue this patch fix?
It doesn't fix a current issue, it ensures an issue doesn't arise in
the future when a new fi
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021, James Almer wrote:
Is using sizeof(AVFrame) an issue apart from that it is not part of ABI?
Is there an actual issue this patch fix?
It doesn't fix a current issue, it ensures an issue doesn't arise in the
future when a new field is added to AVFrame and it's lost when
On 3/14/2021 9:23 AM, Marton Balint wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021, James Almer wrote:
Signed-off-by: James Almer
---
Setting pkt->size to 0 but leaving pkt->data pointing to the frame
ensures that
the packet isn't mistaken for an empty one, and prevents wrong use of
the data
pointer in case a
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021, James Almer wrote:
Signed-off-by: James Almer
---
Setting pkt->size to 0 but leaving pkt->data pointing to the frame ensures that
the packet isn't mistaken for an empty one, and prevents wrong use of the data
pointer in case av_packet_make_writable() is called on it (The
Signed-off-by: James Almer
---
Setting pkt->size to 0 but leaving pkt->data pointing to the frame ensures that
the packet isn't mistaken for an empty one, and prevents wrong use of the data
pointer in case av_packet_make_writable() is called on it (The resulting packet
will be the same as if you c
