On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 6:17 AM Michael Niedermayer
<mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 08:40:07AM +0800, myp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 6:03 AM Moritz Barsnick <barsn...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > + if (dec_ctx->rc_max_rate > 0) print_val ("max_bit_rate",
> > > > dec_ctx->rc_max_rate, unit_bit_per_second_str);
> > > > + else print_str_opt("max_bit_rate", "N/A");
> > > > if (dec_ctx && dec_ctx->bits_per_raw_sample > 0)
> > > > print_fmt("bits_per_raw_sample", "%d", dec_ctx->bits_per_raw_sample);
> > >
> > > If the (now) second condition needs to check for validity of dec_ctx,
> > > shouldn't the new first one also need to check?
> > >
> > >
> > Ha, I guess I missed the check, will update, Thanks
>
> this failure shows up in fate btw: (unless this was some other issue in this
> patch)
> make: *** [fate-mpegts-probe-pmt-merge] Error 139
> make: *** [fate-mxf-probe-dnxhd] Error 139
>
> [...]
>
Yes, this patch will lead to a segment fail in
fate-mpegts-probe-pmt-merge/fate-mxf-probe-dnxhd if didn't check
dec_ctx, I will update patch V2 to fix the break, Thanks.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
