search for: max_packet_buffer_size

Hi Drew, I think the libopusenc patch is better, but there's still a few issues left: 1) The static MAX_PACKET_BUFFER_SIZE value is still problematic because if you link libopusenc with a new version of libopus that supports higher order projection or just more projection channels for order 3, then you will overflow the buffer. I think what you'd want is a _ope_opus_header_get_size() call that would return how larg...

...Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:05 PM Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Drew, > >>> > >>> I think the libopusenc patch is better, but there's still a few issues > >>> left: > >>> 1) The static MAX_PACKET_BUFFER_SIZE value is still problematic because > >>> if you link libopusenc with a new version of libopus that supports > >>> higher order projection or just more projection channels for order 3, > >>> then you will overflow the buffer. I think what you'd want is a >...

...> suggestions. > > Cheers, > Drew > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:05 PM Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> wrote: >> >> Hi Drew, >> >> I think the libopusenc patch is better, but there's still a few issues >> left: >> 1) The static MAX_PACKET_BUFFER_SIZE value is still problematic because >> if you link libopusenc with a new version of libopus that supports >> higher order projection or just more projection channels for order 3, >> then you will overflow the buffer. I think what you'd want is a >> _ope_opus_header_get_si...

...n.ca>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi Drew, > > >>> > > >>> I think the libopusenc patch is better, but there's still a few > > issues > > >>> left: > > >>> 1) The static MAX_PACKET_BUFFER_SIZE value is still problematic > > because > > >>> if you link libopusenc with a new version of libopus that > supports > > >>> higher order projection or just more projection channels for > > order 3, > > >>> then you will...

...>>> Hi Drew, > > > >>> > > > >>> I think the libopusenc patch is better, but there's still > > a few > > > issues > > > >>> left: > > > >>> 1) The static MAX_PACKET_BUFFER_SIZE value is still > > problematic > > > because > > > >>> if you link libopusenc with a new version of libopus that > > supports > > > >>> higher order projection or just more projection channels > for > &gt...

...t; >>> >>> > > >>> I think the libopusenc patch is better, but there's still >>> > a few >>> > > issues >>> > > >>> left: >>> > > >>> 1) The static MAX_PACKET_BUFFER_SIZE value is still >>> > problematic >>> > > because >>> > > >>> if you link libopusenc with a new version of libopus that >>> > supports >>> > > >>> higher order projection or just mo...

...fied my patches for libopus and libopusenc based on your suggestions. Cheers, Drew On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:05 PM Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> wrote: > Hi Drew, > > I think the libopusenc patch is better, but there's still a few issues > left: > 1) The static MAX_PACKET_BUFFER_SIZE value is still problematic because > if you link libopusenc with a new version of libopus that supports > higher order projection or just more projection channels for order 3, > then you will overflow the buffer. I think what you'd want is a > _ope_opus_header_get_size() call that w...

...>> Drew >> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:05 PM Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Drew, >>> >>> I think the libopusenc patch is better, but there's still a few issues >>> left: >>> 1) The static MAX_PACKET_BUFFER_SIZE value is still problematic because >>> if you link libopusenc with a new version of libopus that supports >>> higher order projection or just more projection channels for order 3, >>> then you will overflow the buffer. I think what you'd want is a >>> _ope_op...

...lin.ca <mailto:jmvalin at jmvalin.ca>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Drew, > >>> > >>> I think the libopusenc patch is better, but there's still a few > issues > >>> left: > >>> 1) The static MAX_PACKET_BUFFER_SIZE value is still problematic > because > >>> if you link libopusenc with a new version of libopus that supports > >>> higher order projection or just more projection channels for > order 3, > >>> then you will overflow the buffer. I think...

... >>> > >     >>> Hi Drew, > >     >>> > >     >>> I think the libopusenc patch is better, but there's still > a few > >     issues > >     >>> left: > >     >>> 1) The static MAX_PACKET_BUFFER_SIZE value is still > problematic > >     because > >     >>> if you link libopusenc with a new version of libopus that > supports > >     >>> higher order projection or just more projection channels for > >     order 3, > &g...

Hello all, Sorry for the delay (got really sick last week). Attached are updated patches for libopus, libopusenc, opusfile and opus-tools. Note that the patches for libopusenc, opusfile and opus-tools are dependent on the patch for libopus. Please let me know if you have any additional followup comments or questions. Cheers, Drew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

...>> > > >>> >> > > >>> I think the libopusenc patch is better, but there's still >> > a few >> > > issues >> > > >>> left: >> > > >>> 1) The static MAX_PACKET_BUFFER_SIZE value is still >> > problematic >> > > because >> > > >>> if you link libopusenc with a new version of libopus that >> > supports >> > > >>> higher order projection or just more projection channe...

...is better, but there's >>>>>>> still >>>>>>> > a few >>>>>>> > > issues >>>>>>> > > >>> left: >>>>>>> > > >>> 1) The static MAX_PACKET_BUFFER_SIZE value is still >>>>>>> > problematic >>>>>>> > > because >>>>>>> > > >>> if you link libopusenc with a new version of libopus >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> &gt...