On 10/25/16, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 07:45:25PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: >> On 25.10.2016 12:58, Paul B Mahol wrote: >> > patch(es)have good intent, but better fix is doing/checking it in single >> > place. >> >> I don't agree. >> In general, validity checks should be where the values are actually read. >> This eliminates the risk that bogus values could cause problems between >> being set >> and being checked. >> Also, having only a check in a central place is bad for debugging, because >> it is >> not immediately clear where the bogus value came from, when the check is >> triggered. >> (I know this from personal experience debugging all the cases triggering >> the >> assert in av_rescale_rnd.) >> >> The problem with that approach is that such checks can easily be >> forgotten, which >> is why I think a check in a central place would make sense in addition to >> checking >> the individual cases. > > some formats may also lack a sample rate like mpeg ps/ts > the fact is known insude the demuxer, generic code after it doesnt > know. Doing the only check after the parser is a bit late OTOH > > [...] > > -- > Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB > > What does censorship reveal? It reveals fear. -- Julian Assange >
I'm not (yet) aware of better "fix" so do as you like. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
