[Ffmpeg-devel] Re: [Ffmpeg-cvslog] CVS: ffmpeg/libavcodec dv.c, 1.72, 1.73 (original) (raw)

Roman Shaposhnick rvs
Fri Feb 24 18:50:54 CET 2006

On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 09:50:20AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:

> > } else { > > + if(b->next[k] >= mbareastart[a+1] && b->next[k]<64){_ _> > + for(a2=a+1; b->next[k] >= mbareastart[a2+1]; a2++); > > + assert(a2<4);_ _> > + assert(b->mb[b->next[k]]); > > Why these particular asserts ?

no special reason ...

Do they really have to be there then ? Just from a read

> Are you sure that we need this chunk of code ? My concern is -- in case > where encoder maxes out on all QNOs being 0s -- there's very little we > can to do salvage the situation anyway. Or did you have another idea > when creating this chunk of code ?

well, IMHO its better to remove the smallest coefficients instead of removing random ones and generating an invalid bittream without EOBs

Agreed. However, if this turns out to be undefined behaviour (see my reply to Dan's email) I'll add an explanation to the source code to prevent further questions like this one :-)

Thanks, Roman.

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list