On 24.05.2015 18:56, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 03:52:21PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>> shine_encode_buffer expects written to be an int pointer, while the
>> previous shine_encode_frame expected it to be a long pointer.
>>
>> Thus encoding with libshine currently al
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 03:52:21PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> shine_encode_buffer expects written to be an int pointer, while the
> previous shine_encode_frame expected it to be a long pointer.
>
> Thus encoding with libshine currently always fails with
> "internal buffer too small", becaus
shine_encode_buffer expects written to be an int pointer, while the
previous shine_encode_frame expected it to be a long pointer.
Thus encoding with libshine currently always fails with
"internal buffer too small", because a negative return value of
shine_encode_buffer is interpreted as a very lar
