Am 12.02.2017 um 14:52 schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos:
2017-02-12 5:36 GMT+01:00 Reindl Harald <[email protected]>:
Am 12.02.2017 um 03:30 schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos:
2017-02-12 3:23 GMT+01:00 Reindl Harald <[email protected]>:
gcc-6.3.1-1.fc24.x86_64
gcc.gnu.org doesn't know this release;-)
Anyway: Please understand that several hundred real, user-reported,
reproducible bugs exist in current FFmpeg, some of them regressions.
I hope you agree that compiler bugs are not our priority...
(It's bad enough that we have to invest time in "undefined behaviour"
where no compiler ever failed.)
no i do *not* agree beause some some of that warnings may the
reason for unfixed bugs
I wonder what "may" means here...
google for the word
you don't know the underlying reason of reported but unfixed bugs andf
much more not the reason for existing and currently not reported bugs
and when of the reasons could be some code smell
things like "src/libavcodec/mpegvideo.c:960:17: warning: this
'if' clause does not guard... [-Wmisleading-indentation]" are a clear
indication that this code should be reviewed
Please do;-)
maybe you still don't realize that i am not a C/C++ developer and have
no plans to change that but if i woul dbe one no single line of code
would be commited by me where a recent compiler works and before i
consider implement new features i would cleanup my stuff like the last
decade any PHP code from me was running with "error_reporting E_ALL |
E_STRICT" in production
and to be frankly where i develop software (though not in C/C++ but that
don't matter) i first keep my house clean and fix any warnings software can
Sounds as if we found a new contributor - welcome!
what exactly did you not undestandin "though not in C/C++"
detected automatically and *then* consider to waste my time trying to
reprodce things which could have been gone by get rid of all the code smell
It's funny that you wrote this mail a few hours after I fixed most
of the current warnings - or "several" if you prefer
it's funny that your first reply sounded like "don't care because could
not reprocude it within 10 seconds"
(Yes, we do exactly what you ask for, I just request that you realize
fixing these warnings practically never fixes a real issue, while we
know about many - ! - real issues including remote DOS, regressions
on valid input files and sometimes subtle change of behaviour, both
intended and unintended.)
That's apart from the fact that --extra-cflags and --extra-ldflags
generally make bug reports invalid (as you correctly indicated)
except for paths and libraries
you still refused to answer my question if you did a LTO build as you
(You refused to answer my question.)
where was the question in your inital repsonse?
pretended you can't reporduce it, as you always request full input
of ffmpeg command lines why don't you do the same?
I was hoping my original comment made it crystal-clear that I did
try to reproduce the issues you saw.
no, it soundd just like "i spent 10 seconds, the things did not jup
straigth into my face and since we have so many other work i don't waste
any time for cleanups"
src/libavformat/rtpdec_formats.h:41:5: warning: type of
'ff_h264_handle_aggregated_packet' does not match original declaration
[-Wlto-type-mismatch]
int ff_h264_handle_aggregated_packet(AVFormatContext *ctx, PayloadContext
*data, AVPacket *pkt,
^
src/libavformat/rtpdec_h264.c:206:5: note:
'ff_h264_handle_aggregated_packet' was previously declared here
int ff_h264_handle_aggregated_packet(AVFormatContext *ctx, PayloadContext
*data, AVPacket *pkt,
^
src/libavformat/rtpdec_h264.c:206:5: note: code may be misoptimized unless
-fno-strict-aliasing is used
So what is your initial analysis of this warning?
(You can find mine above, the line starts with "I hope".)
that there is a sloppy type/pointer handling
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[email protected] with subject "unsubscribe".
