On Wed, 20 May 2020, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:06:59PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
pos47_full is not updated for every packet, and for unseekable inputs the
resync logic might simply skip some 0x47 sync bytes. In order to detect these
let's check for modulo instead
On Wed, 20 May 2020, Limin Wang wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 08:26:37AM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2020, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:06:59PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
>>pos47_full is not updated for every packet, and for unseekable inputs t
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:06:59PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
> pos47_full is not updated for every packet, and for unseekable inputs the
> resync logic might simply skip some 0x47 sync bytes. In order to detect these
> let's check for modulo instead of exact value.
>
> Also skip unrecognized syn
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 08:26:37AM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 20 May 2020, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:06:59PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
> >>pos47_full is not updated for every packet, and for unseekable inputs the
> >>resync logic might simply
On Wed, 20 May 2020, lance.lmw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:06:59PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
pos47_full is not updated for every packet, and for unseekable inputs the
resync logic might simply skip some 0x47 sync bytes. In order to detect these
let's check for modulo inst
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 09:06:59PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
> pos47_full is not updated for every packet, and for unseekable inputs the
> resync logic might simply skip some 0x47 sync bytes. In order to detect these
> let's check for modulo instead of exact value.
Before modifying and returning
