[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] H.264/AVCHD interlaced fixes

Ivan Schreter schreter
Tue Feb 17 22:07:18 CET 2009

Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> also the whole ff_h264_decode_rbsp_trailing seems unneeded unless i
>>> miss something
>> I'm also unsure, whether it is needed. Byte-exact length should be 
>> actually sufficient for the stuff parsed in parser (SEI, SPS, PPS and 
>> slice header). I tried removing it and could parse my samples without 
>> problem, as it seems. OTOH, in the future, some other NALs might need 
>> bit-exact length to decode without warning and then we'll have to search 
>> why the warning comes. So maybe we should let it in. What do you think?
> remove it or factorize the code so it is not duplicated
Um... How factorize? I can imagine adding another out parameter for 
ff_h264_decode_nal() for bit length which would be filled with NAL bit 
size. I'm afraid, it won't save more than 1-2 LOC, though.

I've attached the two patches as it is right now for your reference.

BTW, I've posted the whole load of trivial patches and ~4 parser patches 
including proper timestamping of H.264 together in one post to the ML a 
few minutes ago to have a consolidated view of the things. I'd be happy 
if at least trivial prereqs got committed, since it's pretty hard to get 
the hunks separated when updating a patch (and thus, I have to spend 80% 
of the time just managing hunks instead of doing some productive work).



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: h264_parser_1_funcs.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 4962 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20090217/5ff20c1a/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: h264_parser_2_parser.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3160 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20090217/5ff20c1a/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list