On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 05:05:56PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: >> On 14/02/15 16:47, Diego Biurrun wrote: >> >On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: >> >>On 14/02/15 16:38, Diego Biurrun wrote: >> >>>the flags variable as well? And why not int32_t or ssize_t? >> >> >> >>because, as you can read you read a 32bit quantity and then subtract a >> >>value >> >>that is at most 1024. >> > >> >That sort of answers one of my questions. What about flags? And why >> >not ssize_t? I think we should start using more (s)size_t all over >> >the place. >> >> We should not do that mindlessly, if the value returned is an explicit >> 32bit, is better to use explicit types. >> >> (IIRC on certain platforms ssize_t might be less than the 64bit needed to >> avoid the overflow...) > > What overflow?
You could check the CID number, here is the link with the whole flow https://scan5.coverity.com:8443/reports.htm#v36633/p10274/fileInstanceId=67907580&defectInstanceId=20652447&mergedDefectId=1041122 (you need to be logged). Not sure about that ssize_t but imho it's a separate thing from this patch. -- Vittorio _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
