On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:52:55AM +0200, wm4 wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:20:38 +0200
> Reimar Döffinger wrote:
>
> > On 04.07.2017, at 10:42, wm4 wrote:
> > > Not really comfortable with the current patch. Why does it even touch
> > > the compat_decode_partial_size handling path?
> >
> >
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:20:38 +0200
Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> On 04.07.2017, at 10:42, wm4 wrote:
> > Not really comfortable with the current patch. Why does it even touch
> > the compat_decode_partial_size handling path?
>
> Because that is the code that gets utterly confused by 0-size packets
On 04.07.2017, at 10:42, wm4 wrote:
> Not really comfortable with the current patch. Why does it even touch
> the compat_decode_partial_size handling path?
Because that is the code that gets utterly confused by 0-size packets and
breaks everything.
For ac3 what happens is that after the first 0-
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 00:03:19 +0200
Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> On 03.07.2017, at 21:07, wm4 wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 20:57:21 +0200
> > Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> >
> >> The old API did that just fine, and if we provide
> >> a compatibility layer it should at least be compatible.
> >> F
On 03.07.2017, at 21:07, wm4 wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 20:57:21 +0200
> Reimar Döffinger wrote:
>
>> The old API did that just fine, and if we provide
>> a compatibility layer it should at least be compatible.
>> For the test-case (feeding AVParser output directly to
>> decoder, failing to d
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 20:57:21 +0200
Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> The old API did that just fine, and if we provide
> a compatibility layer it should at least be compatible.
> For the test-case (feeding AVParser output directly to
> decoder, failing to discard 0-size packets) just discarding
> 0-size
