Closed r9y9 closed 4 years ago
Thank you for your request.
I think that the revision in line 677 is reasonable, so I will accept it. In the revision in line 715, I propose another solution. The following provides the same result compared with your request. I'd like to revise the line 712 as the following.
for (int i = 0; i < f0_length; ++i) f0_step1[i] = 0.0;
I think that this is shorter than your idea.
If possible, please revise your request in line 715. I will accept the request.
Thank you for the review! I have pushed the changes based on your comments.
Thank you for your revision!
This will fix potential undefined behavior (negative F0 or higher F0 over f0_ceil, those are what I see in fact!) and segfault issues when we use Harvest. Please see the individual commit message for details.
For reference, here are the analysis results with clang memory sanitizer (https://clang.llvm.org/docs/MemorySanitizer.html):
Without https://github.com/mmorise/World/commit/66e5dcdfcd368f21429d815ad6bf9b14aa9d46a8:
Without https://github.com/mmorise/World/commit/33159af1e3e7d7c5b626fb34a7d675c74193a624:
Ref https://github.com/r9y9/nnsvs/issues/7.
With these two fixes, no issues are found with clang address/memory sanitizers, so there should be no memory/address issues.