Quoting wm4 (2017-07-12 17:02:49)
> +int av_frame_apply_cropping(AVFrame *frame, int flags)
> +{
> + const AVPixFmtDescriptor *desc;
> + size_t offsets[4];
> + int i;
> +
> + if (!(frame->width > 0 && frame->height > 0))
> + return AVERROR(EINVAL);
> +
> + /* make sure we are noisy about decoders returning invalid cropping data
> */
The comment does not apply anymore.
> diff --git a/libavutil/frame.h b/libavutil/frame.h
> index f9ffb5bbbf..eb1fa0cba5 100644
> --- a/libavutil/frame.h
> +++ b/libavutil/frame.h
> @@ -580,6 +580,38 @@ AVFrameSideData *av_frame_get_side_data(const AVFrame
> *frame,
> */
> void av_frame_remove_side_data(AVFrame *frame, enum AVFrameSideDataType
> type);
>
> +
> +/**
> + * Flags for frame cropping.
> + */
> +enum {
> + /**
> + * Apply the maximum possible cropping, even if it requires setting the
> + * AVFrame.data[] entries to unaligned pointers. Using this is strongly
> + * discouraged, especially if the data is to be fed back to Libav API. It
> + * can cause performance issues, and in some cases crashes.
'discouraged' is too weak IMO, to me it means that it's something which
is allowed but suboptimal. Whereas passing invalid data to libav* is
outright forbidden as UB, and is very likely to crash. Suggested
wording:
'Note that all Libav APIs (except those that explicitly specify
otherwise) expect the frame data to be aligned, so when this flag is
used, the resulting frame must not be fed back to Libav.'
Otherwise looks ok, modulo apichanges/bump
--
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
