Any modern GCC should support [0] at the tail of a struct. This came up because when I was reading the code I saw they allocated 7 slots (plus the size of the struct) but then fill 8 slots. It's just weird [😊]
Using [0] in the struct and allocating for 8 entries makes more sense and is clearer to read. Tom ________________________________ From: Christian König <deathsim...@vodafone.de> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 11:17 To: StDenis, Tom; amd-gfx list Subject: Re: tidy'ing up cz_hwmgr.c Has a [1] array at the tail which is then kzalloc'ed with N-1 entries. Shouldn't that just be a [0] with N entries allocated for clarity? Actually the starting address of a dynamic array should be manually calculated instead of using [1] or [0]. We had tons of problems with that because some gcc versions get this wrong and the atombios code used this as well. Alex how did we resolved such issues? Regards, Christian. Am 18.08.2016 um 16:26 schrieb StDenis, Tom: Tidying up cz_hwmgr.c I noted a couple of things but first is static bool cz_dpm_check_smu_features(struct pp_hwmgr *hwmgr, unsigned long check_feature); Which will return "true" if the smu call fails or the feature is set. The structure struct phm_clock_voltage_dependency_table; Has a [1] array at the tail which is then kzalloc'ed with N-1 entries. Shouldn't that just be a [0] with N entries allocated for clarity? Tom _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org<mailto:amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
_______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
