2018-06-14 5:08 GMT+02:00, Li, Zhong <zhong...@intel.com>: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ffmpeg-devel [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org] On Behalf >> Of Carl Eugen Hoyos >> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 6:11 PM >> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches >> <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> >> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v2] lavc/qsv: suppress code scan >> complain >> >> 2018-06-13 12:05 GMT+02:00, Li, Zhong <zhong...@intel.com>: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: ffmpeg-devel [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org] On >> Behalf >> >> Of Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:42 PM >> >> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches >> >> <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> >> >> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v2] lavc/qsv: suppress code scan >> >> complain >> >> >> >> 2018-05-24 11:39 GMT+02:00, Li, Zhong <zhong...@intel.com>: >> >> >> From: ffmpeg-devel [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org] On >> >> Behalf >> >> >> Of Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 5:33 PM >> >> >> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches >> >> >> <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v2] lavc/qsv: suppress code >> >> >> scan complain >> >> >> >> >> >> 2018-05-24 10:35 GMT+02:00, Li, Zhong <zhong...@intel.com>: >> >> >> >> From: ffmpeg-devel [mailto:ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org] >> On >> >> >> Behalf >> >> >> >> Of Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 8:32 PM >> >> >> >> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches >> >> >> >> <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v2] lavc/qsv: suppress code >> >> >> >> scan complain >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2018-05-23 12:46 GMT+02:00, Zhong Li <zhong...@intel.com>: >> >> >> >> > Suppress the complain "variables 'type' is used but maybe >> >> >> >> > uninitialized". >> >> >> >> > --- >> >> >> >> > libavcodec/qsv.c | 5 ++++- >> >> >> >> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > diff --git a/libavcodec/qsv.c b/libavcodec/qsv.c index >> >> >> >> > 45e1c25..3ff4f2c 100644 >> >> >> >> > --- a/libavcodec/qsv.c >> >> >> >> > +++ b/libavcodec/qsv.c >> >> >> >> > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ >> >> >> >> > #include "libavutil/hwcontext.h" >> >> >> >> > #include "libavutil/hwcontext_qsv.h" >> >> >> >> > #include "libavutil/imgutils.h" >> >> >> >> > +#include "libavutil/avassert.h" >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > #include "avcodec.h" >> >> >> >> > #include "qsv_internal.h" >> >> >> >> > @@ -197,7 +198,7 @@ int >> >> ff_qsv_find_surface_idx(QSVFramesContext >> >> >> >> *ctx, >> >> >> >> > QSVFrame *frame) >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > enum AVPictureType ff_qsv_map_pictype(int mfx_pic_type) { >> >> >> >> > - enum AVPictureType type; >> >> >> >> > + enum AVPictureType type = AV_PICTURE_TYPE_NONE; >> >> >> >> > switch (mfx_pic_type & 0x7) { >> >> >> >> > case MFX_FRAMETYPE_I: >> >> >> >> > if (mfx_pic_type & MFX_FRAMETYPE_S) @@ -214,6 >> >> +215,8 >> >> >> >> @@ enum >> >> >> >> > AVPictureType ff_qsv_map_pictype(int mfx_pic_type) >> >> >> >> > else >> >> >> >> > type = AV_PICTURE_TYPE_P; >> >> >> >> > break; >> >> >> >> > + default: >> >> >> >> > + av_assert0(0); >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I didn't test but I would have expected that exactly one of >> >> >> >> these changes is sufficient to silence the warning, no? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thanks for review. It is not a compile warning and just found by >> >> >> > Coverity Scan, I've double-confirmed this patch is useful to >> >> >> > suppress the code scan complain. >> >> >> >> >> >> Of course, I understand. >> >> >> >> >> >> My question was if one of the two changes (ie either the variable >> >> >> initialization or the assert) isn't enough to suppress the code >> >> >> scan complain. >> >> > >> >> > I've confirmed that, running scan again. The complain is >> >> > disappeared now. >> >> >> >> Then why did you push both changes instead of only one of them? >> > >> > This one has been reviewed by you >> >> My two questions were: >> Isn't it enough to only change the variable initialization (and change >> nothing >> in the switch) to silence the complain? >> Isn't it enough to only add the default case to the switch (and change >> nothing in the variable initialization) to silence the complain? >> >> You committed changing both the variable initialization and added a >> default >> case, one should have been enough. > > Ok, I misunderstood you doubted any one of these two changes can silence the > complain. > Yes, one is enough for the complain. (the first version of this patch is > just to change the variable initialization. Mark suggested to add the > assert() to check the input is valid).
> So maybe you would like to keep the assert() and remove the variable > initialization? That would have been my original suggestion, yes. Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
