[Bug 664274] [API] codecparsers: add gst_mpeg_video_parse_slice() and gst_mpeg_video_parse_sequence_scalable_extension()

[GStreamer (bugzilla.gnome.org)]

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=664274
  GStreamer | gst-plugins-bad | git

--- Comment #16 from sreerenj <bsreerenj at gmail.com> 2013-01-31 09:14:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Review of attachment 234829 [details]:
> 
> Hi, on second thought, the slice API is not fully consistent with the rest
> (seq_hdr, pic_hdr, et al.). In particular, the offset for slice() is relative
> to the start-code prefix, whereas it is relative to the actual data (after the
> start code + type) for others. I suggest we globally change the MPEG-2 video
> parser API to take a const GstMpegVideoPacket * instead of multiple arguments
> like data, size, offset. That way, the slice API would also know about the type
> to calculate slice_vertical_position without parsing it again.
> 
> Besides, this would also simplify a bit client applications since they usually
> know about the GstMpegVideoPacket to use and would just need to pass it along
> to the parser, instead of propagating all its fields as multiple arguments.
> 

Seems fine...We might be able to do the same with RBDU in vc1,,,

> That's on Tim's call now. :)
> 
> BTW, you don't need to check for height > 2800 again if slice_vertical_position
> is already initialized to zero, before hand. i.e. shift + add is probably
> cheaper than a mispredicted branch in the common case. Not that this is really
> important, just something that came to my mind. :)

Hm,,second if() check is already an extra branching since it is possible to do
the mb_row calculation in first if() check itself..
What you said might be more optimized...
Thanks for the catch..
Do i need to update it like that?? Or will you do it together with your
proposed gst_mpeg_video_packet_parse_*() patch?Just asked because you mentioned
that you might come up with the patch later today itself :)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.