Quoting Martin Storsjö (2016-06-25 20:04:50) > On Sat, 25 Jun 2016, Martin Storsjö wrote: > > > On Sat, 25 Jun 2016, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > >> Quoting Martin Storsjö (2016-06-24 22:44:56) > > > >> And I would feel better if you stripped the data/size/buf/side_data > >> fields from the returned packet, since it's now neither a plain pointer > >> into the intereleaving queue nor a proper reference. > > > > Hmm, I'm a little undecided about that. Being able to peek at the data > > could also be seen as useful in some way; not in the current way it's > > used, but could prove useful otherwise. > > Alternatively, we could also solve it this way instead: > > http://git.videolan.org/?p=ffmpeg.git;a=commitdiff;h=46a60fe184cfd39cc9517c860c7404d60977456d > > Then we can still return a plain reference to the packet within the queue, > letting the user choose whether to apply the offset or not.
The offsets and whatnot should be an internal implementation detail of the interleaving queue, I'd rather not leak such things outside. I guess leaving the data there is not that bad, as long as it's emphasized that the caller is not allowed to keep it or otherwise mess with it. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
