On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 04:20:56PM -0800, Dale Curtis wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 3:38 PM Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:23:07AM -0800, Dale Curtis wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > so i think it work
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 3:38 PM Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:23:07AM -0800, Dale Curtis wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > so i think it works but maybe ive missed something, for which values
> > > of e2_pts do you see
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:23:07AM -0800, Dale Curtis wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>
> > so i think it works but maybe ive missed something, for which values
> > of e2_pts do you see a problem with e1_pts = INT64_MIN?
> >
>
> For e1_pts = INT64_MIN and e
Bump to apply?
- dale
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:21 PM Dale Curtis wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:23 AM Dale Curtis
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
>> wrote:
>>
>>> so i think it works but maybe ive missed something, for which values
>>> of e2_pts do you
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:23 PM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> so i think it works but maybe ive missed something, for which values
> of e2_pts do you see a problem with e1_pts = INT64_MIN?
>
For e1_pts = INT64_MIN and e2_pts >= 0 you end up with a negative int64_t
result for e2_pts - (uint64_t)e
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 03:25:32PM -0800, Dale Curtis wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:55 AM Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>
> > simpler solution, and also behaves arithmetically more correct when the
> > overflow happens in the othert direction:
> >
> > av_assert0(time_tolerance >= 0);
> >
> >
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:55 AM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> simpler solution, and also behaves arithmetically more correct when the
> overflow happens in the othert direction:
>
> av_assert0(time_tolerance >= 0);
>
> if (e2_pts < e1_pts || e2_pts - (uint64_t)e1_pts < time_tolerance)
>
Does that
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:52:16PM -0800, Dale Curtis wrote:
> When e2_pts == INT64_MIN and e1_pts >= 0 the calculation of
> e2_pts - e1_pts will overflow an int64_t. So instead check
> for overflow and default to |time_tolerance| if the value
> is too large for an int64_t.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dale
When e2_pts == INT64_MIN and e1_pts >= 0 the calculation of
e2_pts - e1_pts will overflow an int64_t. So instead check
for overflow and default to |time_tolerance| if the value
is too large for an int64_t.
Signed-off-by: Dale Curtis
From 412751f4747faf34e3dba088dc55290783eb6bd5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:0
