>
>
> Ive reupped the current versions of each seperated patch for comment
> ___
>
>
Hi,
could this patch fix issue #5783? (https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/5783)
Thanks,
MB
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-d
On 4 December 2016 at 01:56, Matt Oliver wrote:
> Indeed, in theory that would work. I always forget about these options.
>> In my experience they do not work reliably, and I would argue against
>> their use in portable code. For example, starting there:
>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/96
>
> Indeed, in theory that would work. I always forget about these options.
> In my experience they do not work reliably, and I would argue against
> their use in portable code. For example, starting there:
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/sys_socket.h.html
> can you tell
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Matt Oliver wrote:
> On 3 December 2016 at 23:40, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Matt Oliver wrote:
>> >
>> > I havent fully tested Hendriks idea as the msdn docs dont recommend
>> calling
>> > multiple winsock functions at the same ti
Replying for the completeness of the discussion.
Le tridi 13 frimaire, an CCXXV, Matt Oliver a écrit :
> Thats the trick, not to large that it results noticeable shutdown delays to
> the user but not to quick that it polls to often, on a modern machine id
> think something like 0.01s would be ok.
Le quartidi 14 frimaire, an CCXXV, Matt Oliver a écrit :
> Would something like the following work for you:
I would not oppose on principle, just a few details.
>
> ---
> libavformat/udp.c | 46 +-
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
On 3 December 2016 at 23:40, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Matt Oliver wrote:
> >
> > I havent fully tested Hendriks idea as the msdn docs dont recommend
> calling
> > multiple winsock functions at the same time from different threads so i
> > wasnt sure about how well
On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Matt Oliver wrote:
>
> I havent fully tested Hendriks idea as the msdn docs dont recommend calling
> multiple winsock functions at the same time from different threads so i
> wasnt sure about how well received a patch that relies on closesocket to
> unblock the recv
On 3 December 2016 at 22:33, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le tridi 13 frimaire, an CCXXV, Matt Oliver a écrit :
> > I was just writing an email to rephrase but you beet me to it (sorry i
> > wasnt faster)
>
> No problem.
>
> > I should rephrase this to "Why is polling with an acceptable
> timeout/slee
Le tridi 13 frimaire, an CCXXV, Matt Oliver a écrit :
> I was just writing an email to rephrase but you beet me to it (sorry i
> wasnt faster)
No problem.
> I should rephrase this to "Why is polling with an acceptable timeout/sleep
> not acceptable". Obviously a event based callback would be more
On 3 December 2016 at 22:05, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le tridi 13 frimaire, an CCXXV, Matt Oliver a écrit :
> > That was because the pthread wrappers dont set errno, so its a required
> > change to remove dependency on pthread.
>
> The pthread wrappers are supposed to match the pthread API, and it
Le tridi 13 frimaire, an CCXXV, Matt Oliver a écrit :
> That was because the pthread wrappers dont set errno, so its a required
> change to remove dependency on pthread.
The pthread wrappers are supposed to match the pthread API, and it does
not use errno: this change is needed by itself.
> Your
On 3 December 2016 at 05:17, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 12 frimaire, an CCXXV, Matt Oliver a écrit :
> > Which changes would those be?
>
> The fix of errno / return value for pthread_cond_timedwait() for
> example.
>
That was because the pthread wrappers dont set errno, so its a required
c
Le duodi 12 frimaire, an CCXXV, Matt Oliver a écrit :
> Which changes would those be?
The fix of errno / return value for pthread_cond_timedwait() for
example.
> This function is already set as nonblocking
I think you read this specific part of the code wrong. Unfortunately,
since this
On 2 December 2016 at 22:16, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le duodi 12 frimaire, an CCXXV, Matt Oliver a écrit :
> > ---
> > configure | 6 --
> > libavformat/udp.c | 48 +++-
> > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>
> It looks l
Le duodi 12 frimaire, an CCXXV, Matt Oliver a écrit :
> ---
> configure | 6 --
> libavformat/udp.c | 48 +++-
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
It looks like there are unrelated changes in this patch.
Can you explain ho
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Matt Oliver wrote:
> ---
> configure | 6 --
> libavformat/udp.c | 48 +++-
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/configure b/configure
> index b5bfad6..cec94c4 100755
> --- a/
---
configure | 6 --
libavformat/udp.c | 48 +++-
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
diff --git a/configure b/configure
index b5bfad6..cec94c4 100755
--- a/configure
+++ b/configure
@@ -1934,7 +1934,6 @@ SYSTEM_FUNCS="
18 matches
Mail list logo
