[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Add support for pcm_*_BE in mov

[Jean First]

On Thu Oct 04 2012 08:39:11 GMT+0200 (CEST), Tim Nicholson wrote:
> On 02/10/12 20:33, Jean First wrote:
>> On Tue Oct 02 2012 12:21:29 GMT+0200 (CEST), Tim Nicholson wrote:
>>> On 01/10/12 20:15, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 05:25:16PM +0100, Tim Nicholson wrote:
>>>>> Currently bit depths >16 are only handled correctly if they are LE.
>>>>> This patch adds support for BE variants and fixes ticket #1767
>>>>>
>>>>> Note I have not renamed the function in this patch which suggests a
>>>>> test
>>>>> for le variants only. Updating this to reflect the general nature of
>>>>> the
>>>>> function can be done in a separate cosmetic patch if required.
>>>> this patch breaks fate
>>>> [...]
>>> Updated patch attached.
>>> This includes new checksums to reflect the change in the mov files due
>>> to the different header type.
>>>   From 4c16fe54575a52334d4aec8d066fa51eaebd0f7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Tim Nicholson<Tim.Nicholson at bbc.co.uk>
>>> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 11:18:04 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH] movenc.c: Add support for >16bit BE flavours
>>>
>>> Currently only LE handled correctly
>>> Updated fate checksums to reflect new headers
>>> ---
>>>    libavformat/movenc.c            |   26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>    tests/ref/fate/acodec-pcm-s24be |    4 ++--
>>>    tests/ref/fate/acodec-pcm-s32be |    4 ++--
>>>    3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/libavformat/movenc.c b/libavformat/movenc.c
>>> index 6de5306..ac8a349 100644
>>> --- a/libavformat/movenc.c
>>> +++ b/libavformat/movenc.c
>>> @@ -288,6 +288,14 @@ static int mov_write_enda_tag(AVIOContext *pb)
>>>        return 10;
>>>    }
>>>    +static int mov_write_enda_tag_be(AVIOContext *pb)
>>> +{
>>> +  avio_wb32(pb, 10);
>>> +  ffio_wfourcc(pb, "enda");
>>> +  avio_wb16(pb, 0); /* big endian */
>>> +  return 10;
>>> +}
>> [...]
>>
>> can't mov_write_enda_tag_be be merged with mov_write_enda_tag ?
>>
> It could, however I thought it would be clearer in the later code to
> have a separate call, and it seemed to match the current style. Given
> that mov_write_enda_tag was called only once anyway it could easily have
> been written inline originally, but was presumably made separate for the
> same reason.
>
> I don't have strong views either way and am happy to change it if that
> is the consensus, as I say I was trying to match the existing style.

If it maches current style, no objections from me then.

Jean