On 5/4/2018 1:51 PM, wm4 wrote: > On Fri, 4 May 2018 13:30:38 -0300 > James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5/4/2018 12:58 PM, wm4 wrote: >>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:05:29 +0200 >>> wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> This can "demux" .vpy files. >>>> >>>> Some minor code copied from other LGPL parts of FFmpeg. >>>> >>>> I did not found a good way to test a few of the more obscure features, >>>> like VFR nodes, compat pixel formats, or nodes with dynamic size/format >>>> changes. These can be easily implemented on demand. >>>> --- >>>> configure | 5 + >>>> libavformat/Makefile | 1 + >>>> libavformat/allformats.c | 1 + >>>> libavformat/vapoursynth.c | 421 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 4 files changed, 428 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 libavformat/vapoursynth.c >>>> >>> >>> Pushed, with some minor changes, and zero-copy frame passing. >> >> The first step to fix something (in this case, usage sizeof(AVFrame) >> outside libavutil) is not adding even more cases of the issue in question. >> You still can replace this with rawvideo. Someone even already wrote it >> for you. >> >> Lets try to abide our own ABI rules... > > That's requires a frame copy and is not what I went through all the > effort for. > > Why didn't you say anything when the kmsgrab code did the same thing? > Or when the unwrapped frame stuff was added in the first place?
I did the other day on IRC when you asked me why i was against this, if you recall, because it was then when i found out this has been the case for a long while, and why I'm now saying adding even more cases is going in the opposite direction of an actual solution. In any case, i explicitly didn't block this, and no one else seems to care, so whatever. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel