[Ffmpeg-devel] Re: [Ffmpeg-cvslog] CVS: ffmpeg/libavcodec dv.c, 1.72, 1.73

[Roman Shaposhnick]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 09:50:20AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > >                         } else {
> > > +                           if(b->next[k] >= mb_area_start[a+1] && b->next[k]<64){
> > > +                                for(a2=a+1; b->next[k] >= mb_area_start[a2+1]; a2++);
> > > +                                assert(a2<4);
> > > +                                assert(b->mb[b->next[k]]);
> > 
> >   Why these particular asserts ? 
> 
> no special reason ...

  Do they really have to be there then ? Just from a read  

> >    Are you sure that we need this chunk of code ? My concern is -- in case
> >    where encoder maxes out on all QNOs being 0s -- there's very little we
> >    can to do salvage the situation anyway. Or did you have another idea 
> >    when creating this chunk of code ?
> 
> well, IMHO its better to remove the smallest coefficients instead of
> removing random ones _and_ generating an invalid bittream without EOBs

  Agreed. However, if this turns out to be undefined behaviour (see my reply 
  to Dan's email) I'll add an explanation to the source code to prevent
  further questions like this one :-)

Thanks,
Roman.