[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Fix return value for incomplete H264 frame packets

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Wed Aug 25 15:07:57 CEST 2010

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 01:40:38PM +0200, P?sztor Szil?rd wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer:
> > repeat_pict is set correctly, an application can use it to find the frame
> > duration. If its not set correctly thats a bug and should be fixed
> > your patch does export a nonsense and wrong value that does often not
> > represent the frame duration and that often will not work
> Ok then here's a patch that adds the status flags suggested by Reimar
> D?ffinger. It is a generalized solution of what I wanted so I'm happy with it.
> These flags can be incrementally added to any decoder if needed.

as i said in reply to reimar, the flags need a clear definition first.
so what is this patch about?
we havent defined what the flags mean, how can any decoder set them if there
is no clear definition.

> (And yes repeat_pict is set correctly, I never said otherwise. But it's not
> suitable to solve this problem because a frame duration of 0 is needed
> for a first-field-only packet and you can't sign that with this flag,
> by definition. That's it.)

what you say makes no sense.
i think you need to read the existing code and need to use clear language
"this problem" and the like without ever making any attempt at explaining what
that would be is rather useless.
and repeat_pict refers to outputed pictures, they by definition cannot be
first-field-only so that case cannot be needed

Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

The misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool.
-- Epicurus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20100825/81623934/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list