Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com> writes:
> romsize is an uint32_t variable. Specifying -1 as an uint32_t value is
> obscure way to denote UINT32_MAX.
>
> Worse, if int is wider than 32-bit, it will change the behavior of a
> construct like the following:
> romsize = -1;
> if (romsize != -1) {
> ...
> }
>
> When -1 is assigned to romsize, -1 will be implicitly casted into
> uint32_t, resulting in UINT32_MAX. On contrary, when evaluating
> romsize != -1, romsize will be casted into int, and it will be a
> comparison of UINT32_MAX and -1, and result in false.
>
> Fix these issues by replacing -1 with UINT32_MAX for statements
> involving the variable.
Could be viewed as cleanup instead of fix, given how unlikely int wider
than 32 bits is. Observation, not a demand :)
> Signed-off-by: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
