On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 04:16:18PM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > > Le primidi 11 brumaire, an CCXXIV, Ganesh Ajjanagadde a écrit : > >> This function can return ENOMEM that needs to be propagated. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> > >> --- > >> libavfilter/vf_pad.c | 12 +++++++----- > >> libavfilter/vf_rotate.c | 5 +++-- > >> libavfilter/vf_scale.c | 5 +++-- > >> libavfilter/vf_zscale.c | 5 +++-- > >> 4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/libavfilter/vf_pad.c b/libavfilter/vf_pad.c > >> index 63dc6a8..a40f5fa 100644 > >> --- a/libavfilter/vf_pad.c > >> +++ b/libavfilter/vf_pad.c > >> @@ -114,9 +114,10 @@ static int config_input(AVFilterLink *inlink) > >> var_values[VAR_VSUB] = 1 << s->draw.vsub_max; > >> > >> /* evaluate width and height */ > >> - av_expr_parse_and_eval(&res, (expr = s->w_expr), > >> + if ((ret = av_expr_parse_and_eval(&res, (expr = s->w_expr), > >> var_names, var_values, > >> - NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, 0, ctx); > >> + NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, 0, ctx)) == > >> AVERROR(ENOMEM)) > >> + goto eval_fail; > > > > I am quite unhappy about this, it is cluttering the code for no good reason > > and makes the test fragile. > > The fragility is something I don't like either, suggestions?
less fragile could be ret < 0 && ret != the error code generated by NaN i dont know what to do about the clutter or if this approuch makes sense or if just droping the return warning for av_expr_parse_and_eval would be better ... [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others. -- Socrates
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
