On 06/14/2011 02:39 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote: > "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? >
==26216== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) ==26216== at 0x91BC93: ff_ac3_fixed_compute_rematrixing_strategy (ac3enc_template.c:352) ==26216== by 0x9199C8: ff_ac3_encode_frame (ac3enc.c:1909) ==26216== by 0x800476: avcodec_encode_audio (utils.c:629) ==26216== by 0x4318FC: do_audio_out (ffmpeg.c:954) ==26216== by 0x434EBD: output_packet (ffmpeg.c:1673) ==26216== by 0x4377AF: T.658 (ffmpeg.c:2615) ==26216== by 0x437E95: main (ffmpeg.c:4436) I have looked at the generated code, but I don't know what to look for really. From what I can tell it does the right thing... I don't know enough about valgrind to know what might be causing it to think otherwise. -Justin _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
