On 09.09.2022 14:27, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/09/2022 13:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 09.09.2022 13:00, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2022 11:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
Gcc12 takes issue with core_parking_remove()'s
for ( ; i < cur_idle_nums; ++i )
Hi,
On 09/09/2022 13:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.09.2022 13:00, Julien Grall wrote:
On 09/09/2022 11:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
Gcc12 takes issue with core_parking_remove()'s
for ( ; i < cur_idle_nums; ++i )
core_parking_cpunum[i] = core_parking_cpunum[i + 1];
complaining that
On 09.09.2022 13:00, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 09/09/2022 11:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Gcc12 takes issue with core_parking_remove()'s
>>
>> for ( ; i < cur_idle_nums; ++i )
>> core_parking_cpunum[i] = core_parking_cpunum[i + 1];
>>
>> complaining that the right hand side array access
Hi Jan,
On 09/09/2022 11:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
Gcc12 takes issue with core_parking_remove()'s
for ( ; i < cur_idle_nums; ++i )
core_parking_cpunum[i] = core_parking_cpunum[i + 1];
complaining that the right hand side array access is past the bounds of
1. Clearly the compiler
Gcc12 takes issue with core_parking_remove()'s
for ( ; i < cur_idle_nums; ++i )
core_parking_cpunum[i] = core_parking_cpunum[i + 1];
complaining that the right hand side array access is past the bounds of
1. Clearly the compiler can't know that cur_idle_nums can only ever be
zero in
