On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:31:48AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 05:27, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 01:51:39PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > If we assert() that num_cpu is always <= EXYNOS4210_NCPUS > > > is that sufficient to clue gcc in that the buffer can't overflow? > > > > Interestingly, assert(s->num_cpu <= EXYNOS$210_NCPUS) is *not* > > sufficient, but assert(i <= EXYNOS4210_NCPUS) within the loop *is* > > enough. I've updated my patch accordingly. > > > > This isn't 4.2 material, obviously. Should I just sit on it until 5.0 > > opens, or does one of you have someplace to stage the patch in the > > meanwhile? > > Easy fixes for compiler warnings aren't inherently out of scope > for 4.2. I'm also collecting stuff for 5.0 anyway so I suggest you > just send the patch.
Ok, done.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
