I think I should update the minor version number as I need to rely on
this behaviour change in VLC, the surface array will be empty.
Should I also change the headers so that they don't require the output
surface to be pre-allocated ?
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Steve Lhomme wrote:
> No need
I think I should update the minor version number as I need to rely on
this behaviour change in VLC, the surface array will be empty.
Should I also change the headers so that they don't require the output
surface to be pre-allocated ?
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Steve Lhomme wrote:
> No need
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:35 PM, wm4 wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:19:35 +0100
> Steve Lhomme wrote:
>
>> From: Steve Lhomme
>>
>> The code is similar to ffmpeg_dxva2. The decoded output needs to be copied
>> into
>> a staging texture that can be accessed by the CPU as the decoder texture
>>
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Matt Oliver wrote:
> On 16 December 2016 at 11:20, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>
>> 2016-12-14 16:47 GMT+01:00 Steve Lhomme :
>> > From: Steve Lhomme
>> >
>> > Without any optimization flags, MSVC does no dead code elimination (DCE)
>> at
>> > all, even for the most
Hello fellow FFmpegers,
Is there still an issue with hardware decoding when combined with
multithread ? It seems to work fine on our Windows build. Although we
have a mutex in place in the D3D11 variant of the code that may help.
It mostly protects the video context...
If necessary we can have th
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Stève Lhomme wrote:
>> Hello fellow FFmpegers,
>>
>> Is there still an issue with hardware decoding when combined with
>> multithread ? It seems to work fine on our Windows b
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Stève Lhomme wrote:
>> Hello fellow FFmpegers,
>>
>> Is there still an issue with hardware decoding when combined with
>> multithread ? It seems to work fine on our Windows b
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:47 AM, wm4 wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:52:18 +0100
> Steve Lhomme wrote:
>
>> For the record all 3 remaining patches (2/4, 3/4 and 4/4) are now
>> merged in libav.
>
> So how do we handle this. Do we wait until the merges catch up, or do
> you want to push your patc
