Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review of IO and Toolbox extensions to Boost.GIL starts TOMORROW
From: Christian Henning (chhenning_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-06 11:19:02
Hi Phil,
>
> I'm not in a position to "insist" on anything, and it's not a question of
> "proving a point". It seems to me that the combination of setjmp/longjmp,
> C++-calling-C-calling-C++, exceptions and destructors that is involved in
> this error-handling mechanism is going to poke into a buggy corner on at
> least one of the platforms that Boost claims to support, and it would be
> much better for that to be detected during testing, rather that when a user
> accidentally tries it on a production system.
>
> I would also say that if you have gone to the trouble of creating test
> images that are corrupted in sufficiently subtle ways to trigger these error
> paths, then it would be valuable to make them public.
>
My corrupted images were merely .txt files. ;-) When reading the
header libjpeg would issue an error and the io extension will throw an
exception. Now, we can argue such testing is insufficient and I would
agree but that's what we have for now. I'm gladly incorporate some
corrupted image reading into the test suite.
Christian