On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:28:27PM +0200, wm4 wrote: > On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 21:18:24 +0200 > Reimar Döffinger <reimar.doeffin...@gmx.de> wrote: > > So I'd prefer to avoid it. However there is the question of which > > code mess/benefit ratio we want to accept. > > I don't see anything wrong in the patch (well, maybe you should switch > the code to the "goto fail;" idiom).
I generally prefer that, however the only way I can see that does not result in a total mess is if I first extract this part into a separate function (of you can see a trivial way to use goto here, I'd like to hear it). Probably a good idea anyway, but I didn't feel like getting completely sidetracked with unrelated code clean-up again. > I was just wondering whether there > was a specific reason for this. Did it fail on a certain system? No, only trying to run "make fate" with "ulimit -s 64". > Anyway, I'm not opposed to these patches; just curious. Sorry, if I sound defensive or anything, that would be because I am myself not completely convinced if and how far we should take it. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
