On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 08:26:40AM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 05:56:12PM -0500, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote: > >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Marton Balint <c...@passwd.hu> wrote: > >>> >>>> if ((ret = ff_formats_ref(in , &ctx->inputs[0]->out_formats)) < > >>> >>>> 0 > >>> >>>> || > >>> >>>> (ret = ff_formats_ref(out, &ctx->outputs[0]->in_formats)) < > >>> >>>> 0) > >>> >>>> - return ret; > >>> >>>> + goto fail; > >>> >>>> return 0; > >>> >>>> +fail: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>>> + av_freep(&in->formats); > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> what if in==NULL? > >>> >>> > >>> >>>> + av_freep(&in); > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>>> + av_freep(&out->formats); > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> ditto > >>> >>> > >>> >>>> + av_freep(&out); > >>> >>>> + return ret; > >>> >>>> } > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> Fixed locally with an if(in) and similar checks. Also applies to other > >>> >> patches I sent. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Maybe it's just me, but don't we usually use two labels for such cases? > >>> > > >>> > E.g. > >>> > > >>> > fail1: > >>> > av_freep(&in->xxx); > >>> > fail2: > >>> > av_freep(&in); > >>> > return ret; > >>> > >>> I don't really mind, I personally prefer a single goto as I find it > >>> logically simpler to analyze. > >>> > >> > >> I also prefer a if branching here. > > > > Any further comments, or is it ok to push? > > last call for this one; else will go in later today. >
You already have my implicit OK, and I wrote that filter, so go ahead. -- Clément B.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel