On Mon, 2015-04-13 at 09:55 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 18:34 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-04-06 at 12:45 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > Usually "x + 1 >= y" should be "x > y", no? > > > > Do you mean x >= y - 1? > > > > The check is for whether there is a next element (x + 1) in the array > > (size y). If not the array will need extending. If there is such an > > element we check whether it already marks the end. > > > > The bug was accessing that array element if it didn't exist to see > > whether we needed a new end marker. I am writing that as i + 1 >= > > dwfl->lookup_elts because if that is not true we'll access > > dwfl->lookup_addr[i + 1]. So the i + 1 check looks symmetric. > > > > Or am I missing something? > > I like to push this, because I believe it is correct and the current > code is wrong. But I don't know whether I am missing something. Please > let me know if you still think there is something obviously wrong with > the fix.
For now I have pushed this fix to master since the original code is wrong and I believe the fix is the clearest way I could write it. But please let me know if I missed something. Thanks, Mark
