On Sun, 2013-07-21 at 23:14 +0200, Peter Meerwald wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Peter Meerwald <pmeerw at pmeerw.net>
> ---
> src/pulsecore/resampler.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/pulsecore/resampler.c b/src/pulsecore/resampler.c
> index 2cbcc52..3cb4e8a 100644
> --- a/src/pulsecore/resampler.c
> +++ b/src/pulsecore/resampler.c
> @@ -1029,13 +1029,26 @@ static void calc_map_table(pa_resampler *r) {
> pa_init_remap(m);
> }
>
> -static size_t fit_buf(pa_resampler *r, pa_memchunk *buf, size_t size) {
> +/* check if buf's memblock is large enough to hold 'size' bytes; create a
> + * new memblock if necessary and optionally preserve 'copy' data bytes */
The comment is incorrect: the function doesn't check if buf's memblock
is large enough to hold 'size' bytes. What it does is to check if buf's
memblock is large enough to hold 'buf->length' bytes, and the caller is
expected to tell the current memblock size with the 'size' variable.
(Perhaps "current_block_size" would be a more informative variable
name?)
I wonder if it would be possible to change the code match the comment
instead of changing the comment to match the code, since the comment
that you wrote describes a much saner system...
> +static size_t fit_buf(pa_resampler *r, pa_memchunk *buf, size_t size, size_t copy) {
> if (!buf->memblock || size < buf->length) {
> size = buf->length;
> + pa_memblock *new_block = pa_memblock_new(r->mempool, size);
CC pulsecore/libpulsecore_4.0_la-resampler.lo
pulsecore/resampler.c: In function 'fit_buf':
pulsecore/resampler.c:1149:9: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code [-Wdeclaration-after-statement]
pa_memblock *new_block = pa_memblock_new(r->mempool, size);
^
Please put variable declarations to the beginning of a code block.
There was also a fit_buf() call in convert_to_work_format() that was
updated only in a later patch, so this patch didn't compile.
--
Tanu
