On 22.11.2016 15:34, Tobias Rapp wrote:
On 22.11.2016 15:06, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:43:57PM +0100, Tobias Rapp wrote:
On 22.11.2016 14:34, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:16:26AM +0100, Tobias Rapp wrote:
Signed-off-by: Tobias Rapp <t.r...@noa-archive.com>
---
ffmpeg.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
do you have a testcase for this ?
No, I just stumbled over it when reading the code.
are you sure that the codepath leaving ret uninitialized is possible ?
if not adding a av_assert() may be better
From my quick glance I assumed that ist->nb_filters could be zero and
the for-loop is not entered. If that should never be the case I agree
that an added av_assert(ist->nb_filters > 0) would be better.
I added an assert and it is not triggered when running FATE, see
attached patch.
Regards,
Tobias
>From a270cfdb637a48aca12d492cf4cb72d9200b6024 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tobias Rapp <t.r...@noa-archive.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:45:00 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ffmpeg: assert return value is initialized
Signed-off-by: Tobias Rapp <t.r...@noa-archive.com>
---
ffmpeg.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/ffmpeg.c b/ffmpeg.c
index c47a824..e4890a4 100644
--- a/ffmpeg.c
+++ b/ffmpeg.c
@@ -2070,6 +2070,7 @@ static int send_frame_to_filters(InputStream *ist, AVFrame *decoded_frame)
int i, ret;
AVFrame *f;
+ av_assert1(ist->nb_filters > 0); /* ensure ret is initialized */
for (i = 0; i < ist->nb_filters; i++) {
if (i < ist->nb_filters - 1) {
f = ist->filter_frame;
--
1.9.1
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
