On 4/9/2017 10:46 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 07:51:10AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> Fixes valgrind warnings about "Use of uninitialised value of size 8"
>
> how can this be reproduced ?
fate-svq1, fate-svq1-headerswap and fate-vsynth{1,2,3,_lena}-svq1 when
configured with --toolchain=valgrind-memcheck
A similar failure can be seen in all ffv1 vsynth tests as well, but i
couldn't find what caused them or where.
> is this a regression ?
Fate didn't always complain about this, so it's either something
introduced by a change in our tree, or a valgrind bug introduced in a
relatively recent version.
The reports in
http://fate.ffmpeg.org/history.cgi?slot=x86_64-archlinux-gcc-valgrindundef
are kinda broken and report a nonsense commit as the "last known good
ref", so i can't say when it started failing.
>
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>
>> This probably just silences a bunch of false possitives.
>
> if thats the case, then the fix is wrong
> valgrind bugs should be fixed in valgrind or the entries should be
> added to the valgrind suppression file
Assuming it is after all a false positive, zero initializing stack is
harmless and gets rid of the noise. But i agree it's not ideal.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
