From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDAC8500A4 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2025 15:32:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D11691662; Mon, 7 Jul 2025 18:32:22 +0300 (EEST) Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef2.ens.fr [129.199.96.40]) by ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AE8168E2FE for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2025 18:32:15 +0300 (EEST) X-ENS-nef-client: 129.199.129.80 ( name = phare.normalesup.org ) Received: from phare.normalesup.org (phare.normalesup.org [129.199.129.80]) by nef.ens.fr (8.14.4/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id 567FWE5O015221 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:32:15 +0200 Received: by phare.normalesup.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id DB0912EFDF; Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:32:14 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 17:32:14 +0200 From: Nicolas George To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: References: <20250624220805.50371-1-epirat07@gmail.com> <1B2B29DA-C587-4A6B-BCAB-DAFDA9DD6230@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]); Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:32:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avformat/tee: refactor option processing X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Marvin Scholz (HE12025-07-04): > If copying two strings fails here, it is highly unlikely any of the following > code, needing much more memory, would have any chance of succeeding. > Yes it introducers two copies which could fail but the chance for that happening > is so small that I dont think it justifies using hacks like this, which also introduce > risk of turning into more serious issues when the AVDictionary code is changed and someone > is unaware of this hack here. Please tell us: How unlikely do you think it needs to be for us to dispense with the checks? 1/1000? 1/1E6? (Hint: the answer is 0.) > We are talking about copying two option strings here, during setup, > not per frame, not every few seconds. You already gave that argument, and I already explained to you that efficiency was the tiniest of my arguments. But it is still an argument. > I disagree making this hack official. Well, I disagree making the current code more verbose for hypothetical reasons. Regards, -- Nicolas George _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".