On 12/10/2018 11:15, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
2018-10-11 14:01 GMT+02:00, Jerome Martinez <jer...@mediaarea.net>:

- why is having a number > INT_MAX an issue? modern machines
are 64-bit and have 8+ GB of RAM
So where is the issue?


The issue is that vanilla FFmpeg shows a warning in the scenario I indicate (a 128 MB frame, far less than 2 GB), without obvious reason of this warning (the multiplier used and the underlying limitation to 2 GB, lower than the available RAM, are hard coded without comments about the reason).


If above is true for you, can can simply remove the check locally, no?

My goal is that **others** don't have this warning when they use a vanilla version of FFmpeg. Before sending a patch for removing the limitation I don't understand (or lowering a number I don't understand), I ask if there is a reason for it (I guess that if this code is here, there is a reason and I imagined that FFmpeg developers could kindly explain the reason), isn't it the right thing to do? Do you prefer that I send directly a patch?

(I hope you agree that what you write is not generally true.)

I don't catch what you want to indicate: do you mean that the only way in FFmpeg to be compatible with all machines is to set an hard coded limit to 2 GB? I don't catch the goal, as you can have machines with 1 GB so this test would be useless on them (it will not prevent other parts of the code to have to do checks about RAM allocations) as well for machines having lot of RAM (they can handle big frames).

As I understand, the following test:
    if ((ret = ff_alloc_packet2(avctx, pkt, maxsize, 0)) < 0)
        return ret;

permits to check that FFmpeg has enough RAM for storing the max encoded frame size, whatever is the size of the RAM (1 GB or 8 GB), so I don't understand the reason maxsize is limited to 2 GB before the call to ff_alloc_packet2.

I kindly request more details about how hard coding 2 GB in the code helps, for both machines having 1 GB & machines having 8 GB. Looks like I am personally not smart enough for understanding that alone.

Jérôme


_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Reply via email to