On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 17:56 +0100, Janne Grunau wrote: > On 2011-12-21 15:47:24 +0100, Tomas Härdin wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 15:28 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: > > > On 21/12/11 14:58, Tomas Härdin wrote: > > > > I hope you made sure the code still work fine on 32-bit systems, > > > > especially when entry counts are ~10^9. > > > > > > Do you have a sample for that? > > > > FATE sample with a single bit flipped at 0x1e9d, turning the zero-entry > > index entry into a 1 Gi entry one: > > http://titan.codemill.se/~tomhar/samples/C0023S01-ohnoes.mxf > > Thanks for noticing. I hope such index size are invalid as in this > example.
Why would they be? The spec certainly doesn't imply any such thing - neither should the demuxer. > Since I'm not really sure what a good limit on the number > of index entries is, I've added checks against overflowing INT_MAX > even on 64-bit. Why not simply keep av_calloc()? It already does such a check. /Tomas _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
