Fix getVideoStartPts when timestamps wrap at MPEG-2 33-bit boundary
#6892
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
robwalch
force-pushed
the
bugfix/fix-start-pts-normalization
branch
from
d4fd26a to
c31aea1
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR will...
Fix
getVideoStartPtswhen timestamps wrap at MPEG-2 33-bit boundaryWhy is this Pull Request needed?
The arguments used to normalized timestamps in
getVideoStartPtswhere provided backwards, and the normalized wrapped value was always used to update the minimum, even though wrapped values are generally are wrapped because timestamp values are advancing.This issue had little to no effect because the value returned by
getVideoStartPtsis only used to determine the difference between audio and video samples at the start of TS segments, the result for which was not off by much if anything when wrapping occurred near the start of a TS segment.Are there any points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
Resolves issues:
Checklist