Hi, 2014-08-12 10:19 GMT+02:00 Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at>: > the "serious undersizing" check already depends on the assumtation > that FF_MIN_BUFFER_SIZE is larger than a slice,
Yes, and here lies the issue: if we haven't been able to guess it correctly previously, how likely are we to guess it correctly here? Take 2*max(previous_slice_size) ? > what i meant was that in case we knowingly allocate a smaller buffer > than the max then reallocation would not be a "abnormal" condition > and thus would not need a warning. > smaller mallocs might be faster, so if for example a 50% sized > buffer is enough for 99.9% of cases needing realloc only in 0.1% > it might be faster to allocate less than the maximum > but i made no benchmarks so it might be negligible ... I see your point. But this is prores, an intermediate codec where people don't mind having tens of MB/s and use workstations. I don't think they really mind the extra allocation. Plus the codec already is lenient: ctx->frame_size_upper_bound is usually a rather high bound (except of course when it's buggy like here). -- Christophe _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel