On 13/03/2013 17:18, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Julien Nabet wrote:
So I must recognize I didn't spend hours about this one just grabbed
a coverity report and tried to find a fix entirely "locally".
So the nobrainer fix would be your 1) and 2) then.
I pushed the patch on master with 1) and 2) (s
Julien Nabet wrote:
> So I must recognize I didn't spend hours about this one just grabbed
> a coverity report and tried to find a fix entirely "locally".
>
So the nobrainer fix would be your 1) and 2) then.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
Thorsten, Caolán,
Following your respective feedback about this, thank you for this, I thought
about "gerrit submitting" on master as it is since Caolán seems quite
confident and it may allow an easier review.
In general, in bug triaging, cppcheck and very recently scan coverity, my
purpose is to
On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 13:43 -0700, julien2412 wrote:
> I noticed several things:
> 1) we could replace "if (pText1)" by "if (pNewText)". Of course if blocks
> must be changed
> 2) if pText1 corresponds to a new OutlinerParaObject and !pText, it seems
> there's a leak
> 3) why pObj->ActionChanged()
Julien Nabet wrote:
> I noticed several things:
> 1) we could replace "if (pText1)" by "if (pNewText)". Of course if blocks
> must be changed
> 2) if pText1 corresponds to a new OutlinerParaObject and !pText, it seems
> there's a leak
>
Yeps.
> 3) why pObj->ActionChanged() and ImpShowPageOfThisOb
Hello,
Scan coverity reported this:
leaked_storage: Variable "pText1" going out of scope leaks the storage it
points to.
See
http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/svx/source/svdraw/svdundo.cxx#1137
1137 void SdrUndoObjSetText::Redo()
1138 {
1139 // copy text for Undo, because the
