From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D1E4960E for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 12:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19CFA68D19E; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:17:39 +0200 (EET) Received: from mail-ej1-f52.google.com (mail-ej1-f52.google.com [209.85.218.52]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8675568CC25 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:17:32 +0200 (EET) Received: by mail-ej1-f52.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a26f73732c5so775081466b.3 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 04:17:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1707913052; x=1708517852; darn=ffmpeg.org; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:message-id:date:subject:to:from :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WHqrE8H7qs/E1Zrfr0cTx7hNwL1iCOnqetQwry9KOso=; b=kqc53/oHPYYTpsla/TdvuV2lmXpj66Viaj6PiD7bTnOZMlvssviBYWJ4FVUMj1hfyp cm82ea9WFRBndiNhy+YVFY/OXB8bemHFGEIqvYIxLn8ihHnThft+FzGhIxXAA8LpYt+s kX8HxQh1cnsjrXb2GHVUBO+RB6HrClQjEia/UCeuRctB4cqXl0ojMrJ3LmtbAjYwdWRl /X5aLonKFFgrA9eWf0JwEZy9LOte1O4E1YRNuvL6frbe9ME9MobL+cR+6rNqygPIWo8H jR4+7fIfS4gLKT4mTvJXcd3Ngw3uhh8WAYIeYgBXbF4svmkyCbR70OxUC5tSZI6FgrP+ JG/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1707913052; x=1708517852; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:message-id:date:subject:to:from :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WHqrE8H7qs/E1Zrfr0cTx7hNwL1iCOnqetQwry9KOso=; b=sm8j/pDSOtmZzB7fHO7NM3RKlR51NZkSLT+OtlSmc8C+wEhbMire8z99rDHYQc7vDJ +AuzROn6KmA2/AMhVnzKr41YjsyLQljh59yNlj0JURMXH0frgoPbqXzCBu+qTK0d4WYf IIFPLrRTASG+dyUEFdx0/kOSfHNFmR5ZqHMLbd6Kgn2PZbMb+92+QTljXNOzGMl8Av83 nc5mSZ2XljB1Bu+mYogGCocKCTu5IsGIWX0x41xCHjP2VvBjhakqcCbwVa8CJ1bOeljf BddRkRmi95QRLXfC4QfU6JPGrmYSoKORdxb1MqgfJ0CyFOu++49MFQNinoDarWtl2VUI OVVg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywmz+fwMI/K0gkFCLAOCVhoIoinnM/yOz/x2JG0MQVPYQyaru+Q KiI1HgTaeBswmFGE3moHiawZw5Uhuq0UoP4L66AWxNWHFYJOne1MXkQ8Fa8W X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGIU0SEiy9G4s/OIsxyVgNosZxUgSwawLaaADpBf+8tfTNFkfkHS0eKphJbjSB7qA4w3wtgoA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7199:b0:a3c:d7a3:2eb5 with SMTP id h25-20020a170906719900b00a3cd7a32eb5mr1689400ejk.13.1707913051627; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 04:17:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.30] (dynamic-2a01-0c22-b18f-7e00-4d77-7237-d02d-b728.c22.pool.telefonica.de. [2a01:c22:b18f:7e00:4d77:7237:d02d:b728]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id vk1-20020a170907cbc100b00a3cef401a3asm1910401ejc.140.2024.02.14.04.17.30 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Feb 2024 04:17:30 -0800 (PST) From: epirat07@gmail.com To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:17:29 +0100 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r6022) Message-ID: <8EE4271A-1080-46B2-AA3F-8DF135007508@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/5] avfilter/vf_signature: Allocate arrays together X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: On 14 Feb 2024, at 13:03, Andreas Rheinhardt wrote: > Signed-off-by: Andreas Rheinhardt > --- > libavfilter/vf_signature.c | 9 ++------- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/libavfilter/vf_signature.c b/libavfilter/vf_signature.c > index 4896e8f2c1..eb48bf773d 100644 > --- a/libavfilter/vf_signature.c > +++ b/libavfilter/vf_signature.c > @@ -250,14 +250,10 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *picref) > int64_t* elemsignature; > uint64_t* sortsignature; > > - elemsignature = av_malloc_array(elemcat->elem_count, sizeof(int64_t)); > + elemsignature = av_malloc_array(elemcat->elem_count, 2 * sizeof(int64_t)); > if (!elemsignature) > return AVERROR(ENOMEM); > - sortsignature = av_malloc_array(elemcat->elem_count, sizeof(int64_t)); > - if (!sortsignature) { > - av_freep(&elemsignature); > - return AVERROR(ENOMEM); > - } > + sortsignature = elemsignature + elemcat->elem_count; Just my 2cents as someone not maintaining this code, so feel free to ignore completely: IMHO this makes it harder to understand what is going on, does it provide any meaningful benefit? At the very least I would suggest to add a comment for the sake of whoever looks a this code next and tries to grasp what is happening there. > > for (j = 0; j < elemcat->elem_count; j++) { > blocksum = 0; > @@ -307,7 +303,6 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame *picref) > f++; > } > av_freep(&elemsignature); > - av_freep(&sortsignature); > } > > /* confidence */ > -- > 2.34.1 > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".