More of static analysis fixes

[JanuszL]

• fixes:
• lack of null-terminated buffers
• uninitialized variables
• replaces throw from the constructor to explicit terminate

Signed-off-by: Janusz Lisiecki jlisiecki@nvidia.com

Why we need this PR?

• fixes issues reported by the coverity

What happened in this PR?

• tested in CI
• fixes:
• lack of null-terminated buffers
• uninitialized variables
• replaces throw from the constructor to explicit terminate

JIRA TASK: [DALI-1094]

[dali-automaton]

CI MESSAGE: [1003318]: BUILD STARTED

[dali-automaton]

CI MESSAGE: [1003318]: BUILD FAILED

[dali-automaton]

CI MESSAGE: [1003318]: BUILD PASSED

[dali-automaton]

CI MESSAGE: [1003495]: BUILD STARTED

[dali-automaton]

CI MESSAGE: [1003495]: BUILD PASSED

[klecki]

I still feel like this pattern is a bit counterproductive:

  static void Deallocate(void *ptr, int device) noexcept {
    DeviceGuard guard(device);
    try {
      DeviceGuard guard(device);
    } catch (...) {
      std::terminate();
    }

It's a bit like:

if (ptr != nullptr) {
	delete ptr;
} else {
 ; // No-op
}

[JanuszL]

I still feel like this pattern is a bit counterproductive:

  static void Deallocate(void *ptr, int device) noexcept {
    DeviceGuard guard(device);
    try {
      DeviceGuard guard(device);
    } catch (...) {
      std::terminate();
    }

It's a bit like:

if (ptr != nullptr) {
	delete ptr;
} else {
 ; // No-op
}

My non-expert point of view is that someone may not expect that DeviceGuard throws and calling Deallocate may end up with the terminate. By making it explicit no one is surprised.