On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
> <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 22.04.2015 17:35, Claudio Freire wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun
>>> <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> + if (k == last_k && msb == last_msb) {
>>>> + av_log(ac->avctx, AV_LOG_ERROR, "patch construction
>>>> failed\n");
>>>> + return AVERROR_INVALIDDATA;
>>>> + }
>>>> + last_k = k;
>>>> + last_msb = msb;
Andreas, do you have a sample that triggers the infinite loop?
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think the INVALIDDATA return will have the desired effect.
>>>
>>> I think you want return -1;
>>
>> This function is only called once and there the check is:
>> if (sbr_hf_calc_npatches(ac, sbr) < 0)
>> return -1;
>>
>> Thus returning AVERROR_INVALIDDATA works as well as -1.
>
> The fact that AVERROR_INVALIDDATA < 0 is a close call on 32 bit platforms.
>
> Still, it's not a new assumption in the code, so I'll grant you that.
What do you mean by "A close call"? All AVERROR_* are negative by
design, and they carry more information than a -1, so their increased
usage is certainly welcome.
The fact that it does not get propagated is a separate issue.
--
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
