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
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
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
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