On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:06:33 +0100
Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> On 24.01.2015, at 21:09, wm4 wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:37:01 +
> > Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/24/2015 4:33 PM, wm4 wrote:
> >>> Which ones? We even expect C99 support from the compiler.
> >>
> >> Doesn't matte
On 24.01.2015, at 21:09, wm4 wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:37:01 +
> Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/2015 4:33 PM, wm4 wrote:
>>> Which ones? We even expect C99 support from the compiler.
>>
>> Doesn't matter. It's the project's policy to have decls at
>> block beginnings. Yes some o
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:26:49PM -0800, jon morley wrote:
> Hi Clément,
>
> I am sorry I was rude. That was not my intention. I was attempting
> to follow these directions from the ffmpeg.org page:
>
> "You can use the FFmpeg libraries in your commercial program, but
> you are encouraged to pub
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 09:09:05PM +0100, wm4 wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:37:01 +
> Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
>
> > On 1/24/2015 4:33 PM, wm4 wrote:
> > > Which ones? We even expect C99 support from the compiler.
> >
> > Doesn't matter. It's the project's policy to have decls at
> > block
Hi Clément,
I am sorry I was rude. That was not my intention. I was attempting to
follow these directions from the ffmpeg.org page:
"You can use the FFmpeg libraries in your commercial program, but you
are encouraged to publish any patch you make. In this case the best way
to proceed is to s
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:37:01 +
Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> On 1/24/2015 4:33 PM, wm4 wrote:
> > Which ones? We even expect C99 support from the compiler.
>
> Doesn't matter. It's the project's policy to have decls at
> block beginnings. Yes some of us think it's better.
>
> We know you don't.
On 1/24/2015 4:33 PM, wm4 wrote:
> Which ones? We even expect C99 support from the compiler.
Doesn't matter. It's the project's policy to have decls at
block beginnings. Yes some of us think it's better.
We know you don't. Don't start an ideological troll war.
- Derek
___
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 17:21:40 +0100
Clément Bœsch wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 07:40:38AM -0800, jon morley wrote:
> > Hi Clément,
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> > That is a good point! I am attaching an additional patch to remove those
> > cases even before entering the mod test loop.
> >
> > Now the lo
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 07:40:38AM -0800, jon morley wrote:
> Hi Clément,
>
Hi,
> That is a good point! I am attaching an additional patch to remove those
> cases even before entering the mod test loop.
>
> Now the logic should look like this:
>
> static int check_fps(int fps)
> {
> if (f
Hi Clément,
That is a good point! I am attaching an additional patch to remove those
cases even before entering the mod test loop.
Now the logic should look like this:
static int check_fps(int fps)
{
if (fps <= 0) return -1;
int i;
static const int supported_fps_bases[] = {24, 25
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 08:48:37AM -0800, jon morley wrote:
> Patch attached for consideration.
>
> On 1/23/15 8:03 AM, jon morley wrote:
> >Currently check_fps has the following logic:
> >
> >static int check_fps(int fps)
> >{
> > int i;
> > static const int supported_fps[] = {24, 25, 30,
Patch attached for consideration.
On 1/23/15 8:03 AM, jon morley wrote:
Currently check_fps has the following logic:
static int check_fps(int fps)
{
int i;
static const int supported_fps[] = {24, 25, 30, 48, 50, 60};
for (i = 0; i < FF_ARRAY_ELEMS(supported_fps); i++)
i
Currently check_fps has the following logic:
static int check_fps(int fps)
{
int i;
static const int supported_fps[] = {24, 25, 30, 48, 50, 60};
for (i = 0; i < FF_ARRAY_ELEMS(supported_fps); i++)
if (fps == supported_fps[i])
return 0;
return -1;
}
I am start
13 matches
Mail list logo
