On 25 August 2015 at 15:17, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > Stumbled over this while throwing away old mail. Andreas, what do you > think?
Seems right to me -- I suspect the original properties code was written with the assumption that the property field would be inside the device struct (and so offsets are small). The array properties code breaks that assumption by allocating a separate lump of memory with the properties in it; so now there's no guarantee that the two pointers being subtracted will be within 4G of each other. Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> Arguably for consistency the 'arrayoffset' struct member should also be a ptrdiff_t, though our current uses of it are such that it'll always be within int range. -- PMM
