[FFmpeg-devel] lavfi: request_frame() return value.

Clément Bœsch ubitux at gmail.com
Mon Mar 18 02:44:21 CET 2013

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 04:06:22PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le septidi 27 ventôse, an CCXXI, Clement Boesch a écrit :
> > I'd say 2 & 3 (if->while and auto-insert), because I like the idea of
> > being able to simplify the filters themselves
> I believe you confused the solutions: 2 is "change the semantic of return 0"
> (this is what your patch implements) and 3 is "add a loop in
> ff_request_frame", they are mutually exclusive.
> I believe I like 3 slightly better, but I have no strong argument.

I thought 3 was the orthogonal proposition of Michael, sorry. I have no
opinion between the two either.

> > auto-inserted segmentation filter is a more expressive way of showing
> > what's happening than having it in the core like now (where it's not easy
> > to get a clue what's going on).
> Michael's arguments for auto-inserting the segmentation filter are
> convincing, but as he said, it is completely orthogonal to the problem at
> hand. And it will not happen immediately.


> > Apart from this, I need a fix for min/max samples ASAP so I can unblock
> > the current work with metadata in filters :)
> You can always implement 0 (looping inside ebur128, see request_frame for
> af_atempo) immediately.

Good point, will do.

Clément B.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20130318/a0825581/attachment.asc>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list