On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:46 PM, James Almer wrote:
>> On 21/07/15 11:43 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>>> or try to work upstream with GCC to remove these spurious warnings.
>>
>> If it can be fixed upstream then that's certainly the
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:46 PM, James Almer wrote:
> On 21/07/15 11:43 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> or try to work upstream with GCC to remove these spurious warnings.
>
> If it can be fixed upstream then that's certainly the best option.
> For all we know new code we add in the future may t
On 21/07/15 11:43 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> or try to work upstream with GCC to remove these spurious warnings.
If it can be fixed upstream then that's certainly the best option.
For all we know new code we add in the future may trigger this bug
again.
___
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Michael Niedermayer
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Michael Niedermayer
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:25:08AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> >>> On 04/06/15 6:55 PM, Ganesh
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:25:08AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>>> On 04/06/15 6:55 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>>> > I have created a small test case which gets at the he
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:25:08AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> On 04/06/15 6:55 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> > I have created a small test case which gets at the heart of one of
>> > these spurious
>> > warnings, namely the one for
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 01:25:08AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 04/06/15 6:55 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> > I have created a small test case which gets at the heart of one of
> > these spurious
> > warnings, namely the one for libavfilter/vf_swapuv.c.
> >
> > Here is the ticket on the GCC Bu
On 04/06/15 6:55 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> I have created a small test case which gets at the heart of one of
> these spurious
> warnings, namely the one for libavfilter/vf_swapuv.c.
>
> Here is the ticket on the GCC Bugzilla:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66422
>
> Note
I have created a small test case which gets at the heart of one of
these spurious
warnings, namely the one for libavfilter/vf_swapuv.c.
Here is the ticket on the GCC Bugzilla:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66422
Note that as of the moment, -Warray-bounds appears quite broken on GC
On 04/06/15 10:08 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:05:54PM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>>> While compiling ffmpeg, I noticed a bunch of -Warray-bounds warnings.
>>> I think it would be great if ffmpeg coul
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:05:54PM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
>> While compiling ffmpeg, I noticed a bunch of -Warray-bounds warnings.
>> I think it would be great if ffmpeg could be built warning-free, and
>> -Warray-bounds seems
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:05:54PM -0400, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> While compiling ffmpeg, I noticed a bunch of -Warray-bounds warnings.
> I think it would be great if ffmpeg could be built warning-free, and
> -Warray-bounds seems to be one of the biggest culprits. Nevertheless,
> -Warray-bound
Ganesh Ajjanagadde mit.edu> writes:
> I think it would be great if ffmpeg could be
> built warning-free
I am sure nobody here is against compiling FFmpeg
without warnings but I wonder if it is possible
and if it is worth the effort.
> Which option do the devs here prefer?
Not related to you
Le quintidi 15 prairial, an CCXXIII, Ganesh Ajjanagadde a écrit :
> 1. using av_assert0() to ensure that array access remains in bounds in
> these few cases. This could lead to performance hit.
Using av_assert1() or av_assert2() will yield a performance hit, but only
when enabled in development bu
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote:
> While compiling ffmpeg, I noticed a bunch of -Warray-bounds warnings.
> I think it would be great if ffmpeg could be built warning-free, and
> -Warray-bounds seems to be one of the biggest culprits. Nevertheless,
> -Warray-bounds is quite
While compiling ffmpeg, I noticed a bunch of -Warray-bounds warnings.
I think it would be great if ffmpeg could be built warning-free, and
-Warray-bounds seems to be one of the biggest culprits. Nevertheless,
-Warray-bounds is quite useful in most cases.
I currently see 2 possible improvements:
1.
17 matches
Mail list logo
