[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avcodec/h264_parse: no need check ref list1 for P slices.

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 08:38:12AM +0000, Lin, Decai wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ffmpeg-devel [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org] On Behalf Of
> > mypopy at gmail.com
> > Sent: 2019年2月1日 15:14
> > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> > <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avcodec/h264_parse: no need check ref
> > list1 for P slices.
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 1:28 PM Lin, Decai <decai.lin at intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ffmpeg-devel [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org] On
> > > > Behalf Of Michael Niedermayer
> > > > Sent: 2019年2月1日 1:12
> > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches
> > > > <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avcodec/h264_parse: no need
> > > > check ref
> > > > list1 for P slices.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 03:36:56PM +0800, Decai Lin wrote:
> > > > > This is robust for some corner case there is incorrect list1 count
> > > > > in pps header, but it's a P slice and can be decoded well.
> > > >
> > > > please provide a sample h264 video that needs this
> > > >
> > >
> > > Attached the test clip for this patch.
> > >
> > 
> > I think the better way is to add a new fate test case with the test clip for
> > h264dec, isn't it?
> 
> Yes, I can file another patch for the related fate test case.

fate tests covering previously uncovered cases is always a good idea

thx


[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves? -- Diogenes of Sinope
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20190208/5572b928/attachment.sig>