no problem, it was actually good, I think that even if current code is
correct, I'll still submit
the new diff for review because it looks better.
On 2 June 2016 at 10:34, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 02:54:06PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > On
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 02:54:06PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> On the other hand the original code was correct in the first place.
>
> And as Julien noted Coverity tries to restore the template buffer format
> from a local variable which doesn't exists any more where you wanted to add
> the
On the other hand the original code was correct in the first place.
And as Julien noted Coverity tries to restore the template buffer format
from a local variable which doesn't exists any more where you wanted to
add the line.
So Coverity creates code which won't compile and needs to be
Yeah, that solution looks more correct to me.
Christian.
Am 31.05.2016 um 14:44 schrieb Julien Isorce:
Hi,
Thx for looking at it but are you sure your diff compiles ?
Can you try this instead:
--- a/src/gallium/state_trackers/va/image.c
+++ b/src/gallium/state_trackers/va/image.c
@@ -471,19
Hi,
Thx for looking at it but are you sure your diff compiles ?
Can you try this instead:
--- a/src/gallium/state_trackers/va/image.c
+++ b/src/gallium/state_trackers/va/image.c
@@ -471,19 +471,19 @@ vlVaPutImage(VADriverContextP ctx, VASurfaceID
surface, VAImageID image,
if (format !=
Am 31.05.2016 um 03:24 schrieb Eric Engestrom:
CoverityID: 1337953
Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom
---
Note that I do not know this code at all; I'm blindly following Coverity's
advice on this one :]
Well and that is completely nonsense. The buffer was already reallocated
CoverityID: 1337953
Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom
---
Note that I do not know this code at all; I'm blindly following Coverity's
advice on this one :]
---
src/gallium/state_trackers/va/image.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git