"Ronald S. Bultje" <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Justin Ruggles > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 06/14/2011 12:40 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Justin Ruggles >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> gcc stopped complaining with av_unused() but valgrind still thinks that the >>>> variable is used uninitialized and emits errors. >>>> --- >>>> libavcodec/ac3enc_template.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> >>> Looking at the code, isn't valgrind wrong here? I'm seriously not >>> seeing how that can happen... >> >> Yes, I've been over and over this function and the only conclusion I can >> come to is that valgrind is just wrong here. > > So mask it out? No need to apply the patch, I think... (Not that I > care all that much, it's just that was policy in the past.)
What is the exact valgrind message? Have you looked at the generated code? -- Måns Rullgård [email protected] _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
