On 14/10/14 21:32, Anton Khirnov wrote:
I really do not see how the new code is any better than the old one.
It is not, as stated.
If I'm reading it correctly, it just does the exact same thing in a more roundabout way.
It does the way it is expected, since that function really expects an array of pointers and coverity figures that part out.
Not sure if using an explicit array would make the (unlikely) problem of doing (&pointer)[n] for n > 0 more apparent with a segfault instead of writing over random memory.
I'm perfectly fine in just silencing the issue in coverity. lu _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
