On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:06:48 +0100
Andreas Tscharner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25.02.2017 08:00, Roman Dobosz wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > diff --git a/util/wmiv.c b/util/wmiv.c
> > index e99e3e3..64e6eb5 100755
> > --- a/util/wmiv.c
> > +++ b/util/wmiv.c
> > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
> > #include <unistd.h>
> > #include <sys/stat.h>
> > #include <getopt.h>
> > +#include <math.h>
> > #include "config.h"
> >
> > #ifdef HAVE_EXIF
> > @@ -218,7 +219,7 @@ int rescale_image(void)
> > long final_height = img->height;
> >
> > /* check if there is already a zoom factor applied */
> > - if (zoom_factor != 0) {
> > + if (fabsf(zoom_factor) <= 0.0f) {
>
> Are you sure about that one? I don't know the other code and what or
> what not can happen to "zoom_factor" but (zoom_factor != 0) and
> (fabs(zoom_factor <= 0.0f) are certainly not the same.
Thanks for the feedback :) And no, I'm not sure about this one. Also,
there are opinions on Internet on this error, for example [1][2] and
solution which I've adapted [3].
zoom_factor is a float (which have default value float 0), which is
compared to value 0 - that causes compiler to complain about
unsafe to compare floats to some arbitrary number (Wfloat-equal).
[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11421756
[2] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29962813
[3]
https://github.com/cloudyourcar/minmea/commit/40b3fdd80d995915066b04c95023c9593524a997
--
Roman Dobosz
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
