It breaks all the calculations. While it can make sense during
initialization, there's very little API that can be called with such
timecodes without ending up with wrong results.
The old API would only assert or return an invalid timecode, the new API
returns a boolean or NULL. We can't change the existing API
unfortunately but can at least deprecate it.
When initializing a timecode from a GDateTime, and the remaining time
until the new second is less than half a frame (according to the given
frame rate), it would lead to the creation of an invalid timecode, e.g.
00:00:00:25 (at 25 fps) instead of 00:00:01:00. Fixed.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779866
In gst_video_time_code_is_valid, also check for invalid
ranges when using drop-frame TC. Refactor some code which
broke after the check was added.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779010
Sometimes there is a human-oriented timecode that represents an
interval between two other timecodes. It corresponds to the human
perception of "add X hours" or "add X seconds" to a specific timecode,
taking drop-frame oddities into account. This interval-representing
timecode is now a GstVideoTimeCodeInterval. Also added function to add it to
a GstVideoTimeCode.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=776447
For drop-frame timecodes, the nsec_since_daily_jam doesn't necessarily
directly correspond to this many hours/minutes/seconds/frames. We have
to get the frame count as per frames_since_daily_jam and then convert.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=774585
They are false positive overflows, because coverity doesn't realize that
hours <= 24, minutes < 60 and seconds < 60 in all functions. Also casting the
number 60 (seconds in minute, minutes in hour) to guint64 for the
calculations, in order to avoid overflowing once we allow more than 24-hour
timecodes.
CIDs #1371459, #1371458
Most of them are overflow related and false positives, but coverity can't know
that these can't overflow without us giving it more information. Add some
assertions for this.
One was an actual issue with flags comparison.
CIDs #1369051, #1369050, #1369049, #1369048, #1369045
