Re: [libav-devel] [PATCH] avutil: make AV_NOPTS_VALUE signed negative

2017-11-05 Thread Vittorio Giovara
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > libav generally uses int64_t to represent timestamps, and thus > AV_NOPTS_VALUE has to fit witin the range of int64_t. > > The current definition of AV_NOPTS_VALUE results in AV_NOPTS_VALUE > having the same type as

Re: [libav-devel] [PATCH] avutil: make AV_NOPTS_VALUE signed negative

2017-11-05 Thread Mark Thompson
On 05/11/17 11:21, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > libav generally uses int64_t to represent timestamps, and thus > AV_NOPTS_VALUE has to fit witin the range of int64_t. > > The current definition of AV_NOPTS_VALUE results in AV_NOPTS_VALUE > having the same type as uint64_t, since its value is

Re: [libav-devel] [PATCH] avutil: make AV_NOPTS_VALUE signed negative

2017-11-04 Thread James Almer
On 11/4/2017 6:06 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > libav generally uses int64_t to represent timestamps, and thus > AV_NOPTS_VALUE has to fit witin the range of int64_t. > > The current definition of AV_NOPTS_VALUE results in AV_NOPTS_VALUE > having the same type as uint64_t, since its value is

Re: [libav-devel] [PATCH] avutil: make AV_NOPTS_VALUE signed negative

2017-11-04 Thread Luca Barbato
On 04/11/2017 10:06, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: undefined overflowing conversion from uint64_t to int64_t. Sounds good to me. lu ___ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel