On 06 Feb 2014, at 21:09, Luca Barbato <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 06/02/14 21:07, Tim Walker wrote:
>> Does that mean the "initial" should be dropped from the commit message?
>
> Can be done. Is the patch ok for everybody?
It's OK for me, to the extent that I don't understand what it does. Nothing
appears obviously wrong, AFAICT.
> @@ -273,6 +301,12 @@ static int dnxhd_decode_macroblock(DNXHDContext *ctx,
> AVFrame *frame, int x, int
> ctx->dsp.clear_block(ctx->blocks[i]);
> ctx->decode_dct_block(ctx, ctx->blocks[i], i, qscale);
> }
> + if (ctx->is_444) {
> + for (; i < 12; i++) {
> + ctx->dsp.clear_block(ctx->blocks[i]);
> + ctx->decode_dct_block(ctx, ctx->blocks[i], i, qscale);
> + }
> + }
>
> if (frame->interlaced_frame) {
> dct_linesize_luma <<= 1;
I suppose in context it looks clear, but maybe:
for (/* i = 8 */; i < 12; i++) {
…or even better, just set 8 vs. 12 before the first loop based on is444, and
get rid of the second? Looks like both loops do the same thing.
Also, regarding the commit message, any opinions regarding "444" vs. "4:4:4"?
Tim
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
