[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Check malloc values in swscale.

Ramiro Polla ramiro.polla
Wed Aug 19 03:43:25 CEST 2009


On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Michael Niedermayer<michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 09:41:06PM -0300, Ramiro Polla wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Reimar
>> D?ffinger<Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 07:25:08PM -0300, Ramiro Polla wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Reimar
>> >> D?ffinger<Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> wrote:
>> >> > Though currently I think it would make most sense to start with using
>> >> > the sws_getConstVec function where possible, it should cut down future
>> >> > diffs most.
>> >>
>> >> Where can it be used that much?
>> >
>> > I already previously pointed out the 4 out the 7 allocations that should
>> > actually be using sws_getConstVec anyway instead of duplicating its code
>> > in addition to the allocation itself.
>>
>> Ignore the old patchset. Review these instead.
>
>> ?swscale.c | ? 44 ++++++++++----------------------------------
>> ?1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>> 9611f5bb9edbdefd8a8a2f237963dd0ce5ea34ba ?0001-Reuse-sws_getConstVec-where-possible.patch
>> From 4f7b99f002c4c43bc8f44ce6f01e73c7812ef906 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Ramiro Polla <ramiro.polla at gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:28:26 -0300
>> Subject: [PATCH] Reuse sws_getConstVec() where possible.
>
> ok
>
> [...]
>
>
>> ?swscale.c | ? 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
>> ?swscale.h | ? ?5 +++++
>> ?2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>> e9d220f299ba682fb5346300f67268a0d4ebe581 ?0002-Introduce-and-use-sws_allocVec.patch
>> From 0c361886176aa13480e78a15ad9f6cfc5f949242 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Ramiro Polla <ramiro.polla at gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:34:41 -0300
>> Subject: [PATCH] Introduce and use sws_allocVec().
>>
>> ---
>> ?swscale.c | ? 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
>> ?swscale.h | ? ?5 +++++
>> ?2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> ok
>

Both applied.

> [...]
>
> the rest has some comments from reimar on or are reindent

New patch attached.

Is it ok to reindent like the previous patch? Or else we can just
leave things as they are, I don't mind much (but I think Diego does).

Ramiro Polla
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: check_vec_return.diff
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 1954 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20090818/ca24c348/attachment.diff>



More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list