[ivtcDupeRemover] return true from ivtcDupeRemover::getNextFrame

[jirislaby]

It is declared as returning a bool, but returns nothing. But the callers expect something to be returned: true in case it succeeded.

Double check I got it right...

[eumagga0x2a]

Could you please explain under which circumstances the added return statement can be ever reached?

[jirislaby]

@eumagga0x2a compiler warns about the default label. ADM_assert expands to ADM_backTrack, but the latter is not defined with no_return attribute. And it actually can return on some platforms (HAIKU or sun), see: https://github.com/mean00/avidemux2/blob/59c11947d07fead588336a4b75a73fc2681711a0/avidemux_core/ADM_core/src/ADM_crashdump_unix.cpp#L185-L231

[jirislaby]

Based on the previous comment, it should return false, given there is return true hidden in the END_PROCESS macros used there.

[mm1044]

the latter is not defined with no_return attribute

Maybe that is the root issue? Why are these two cases "unsupported"? Unwanted, impossible or ToDo? Shouldn't ADM_backTrack print an error and exit, instead of ignoring and returning?

it actually can return on some platforms (HAIKU or sun)

You may want to add a comment here about that.

[jirislaby]

the latter is not defined with no_return attribute

Maybe that is the root issue? Why are these two cases "unsupported"? Unwanted, impossible or ToDo? Shouldn't ADM_backTrack print an error and exit, instead of ignoring and returning?

IMO, it should always die for consistency (and be declared as noreturn). But this is the first time I looked into the avidemux code so I am not the one to decide this...

it actually can return on some platforms (HAIKU or sun)

You may want to add a comment here about that.

What do you mean by here here?

Anyway, pushing implementation of the above shortly.

[mm1044]

What do you mean by here here?

I meant at ivtcDupeRemover::getNextFrame(), but that is superseded by your new/current commit.