int: Address safety warnings in pvt::append_tiff_dir_entry#4737
Merged
Conversation
I think what we were doing here was fine all along, but the idiom was confusing to static analyzers who identified a danger that we were memcpy'ing into a field that was potentially not big enough. A minor restructuring of the code and a new assertion should verify that it's safe and also make it clear to the static analyzer that we aren't falling into the case it warned about. Signed-off-by: Larry Gritz <lg@larrygritz.com>
Contributor
|
Looks good to me. Did a test compile, and it compiled without issues. |
scott-wilson
approved these changes
May 4, 2025
lgritz
added a commit
to lgritz/OpenImageIO
that referenced
this pull request
May 7, 2025
…ftwareFoundation#4737) I think what we were doing here was fine all along, but the idiom was confusing to static analyzers who identified a danger that we were memcpy'ing into a field that was potentially not big enough. A minor restructuring of the code and a new assertion should verify that it's safe and also make it clear to the static analyzer that we aren't falling into the case it warned about. Signed-off-by: Larry Gritz <lg@larrygritz.com>
scott-wilson
pushed a commit
to scott-wilson/OpenImageIO
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
…ftwareFoundation#4737) I think what we were doing here was fine all along, but the idiom was confusing to static analyzers who identified a danger that we were memcpy'ing into a field that was potentially not big enough. A minor restructuring of the code and a new assertion should verify that it's safe and also make it clear to the static analyzer that we aren't falling into the case it warned about. Signed-off-by: Larry Gritz <lg@larrygritz.com> Signed-off-by: Scott Wilson <scott@propersquid.com>
scott-wilson
pushed a commit
to scott-wilson/OpenImageIO
that referenced
this pull request
May 18, 2025
…ftwareFoundation#4737) I think what we were doing here was fine all along, but the idiom was confusing to static analyzers who identified a danger that we were memcpy'ing into a field that was potentially not big enough. A minor restructuring of the code and a new assertion should verify that it's safe and also make it clear to the static analyzer that we aren't falling into the case it warned about. Signed-off-by: Larry Gritz <lg@larrygritz.com> Signed-off-by: Scott Wilson <scott@propersquid.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I think what we were doing here was fine all along, but the idiom was confusing to static analyzers who identified a danger that we were memcpy'ing into a field that was potentially not big enough. A minor restructuring of the code and a new assertion should verify that it's safe and also make it clear to the static analyzer that we aren't falling into the case it warned about.