If the value is always initialized in the callee, then there's no
problem configuring ECLAIR so that it knows that this parameter is
always written, and therefore any subsequent use in the caller is ok.
Another possibility is stating that a function never reads the
pointee before writing
On 20/07/23 17:39, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
The e-mail is getting quite long. Can you trim the unnecessary bits when
replying?
Ok.
On 20/07/2023 15:23, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
The problem is that _t may be uninitialized, hence assigning its
address to t could be problematic.
But the
Hi,
The e-mail is getting quite long. Can you trim the unnecessary bits when
replying?
On 20/07/2023 15:23, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
The problem is that _t may be uninitialized, hence assigning its
address to t could be problematic.
But the value is set right after. IOW, there is no read
Hi Nicola,
On 20/07/2023 11:14, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 17/07/23 15:40, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Nicola,
On 17/07/2023 13:08, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 14/07/23 15:00, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Nicola,
On 14/07/2023 12:49, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
This patch aims to fix some occurrences of
On 20/07/23 12:14, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 17/07/23 15:40, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Nicola,
On 17/07/2023 13:08, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 14/07/23 15:00, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Nicola,
On 14/07/2023 12:49, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
This patch aims to fix some occurrences of possibly
On 17/07/23 15:40, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Nicola,
On 17/07/2023 13:08, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 14/07/23 15:00, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Nicola,
On 14/07/2023 12:49, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
This patch aims to fix some occurrences of possibly uninitialized
variables, that may be read before
On 17/07/23 23:15, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Nicola,
I am currently looking at the code to check if we can avoid some SAF-*.
But I need some clarification on the usage.
On 14/07/2023 12:49, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
@@ -2914,6 +2924,7 @@ static int __init make_vpl011_uart_node(struct
Hi Nicola,
I am currently looking at the code to check if we can avoid some SAF-*.
But I need some clarification on the usage.
On 14/07/2023 12:49, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
@@ -2914,6 +2924,7 @@ static int __init make_vpl011_uart_node(struct
kernel_info *kinfo)
void *fdt = kinfo->fdt;
Hi Nicola,
On 17/07/2023 13:08, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 14/07/23 15:00, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Nicola,
On 14/07/2023 12:49, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
This patch aims to fix some occurrences of possibly uninitialized
variables, that may be read before being written. This behaviour would
violate
On 14/07/23 15:00, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Nicola,
On 14/07/2023 12:49, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
This patch aims to fix some occurrences of possibly uninitialized
variables, that may be read before being written. This behaviour would
violate MISRA C:2012 Rule 9.1, besides being generally
Hi Nicola,
On 14/07/2023 12:49, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
This patch aims to fix some occurrences of possibly uninitialized
variables, that may be read before being written. This behaviour would
violate MISRA C:2012 Rule 9.1, besides being generally undesirable.
In all the analyzed cases, such
This patch aims to fix some occurrences of possibly uninitialized
variables, that may be read before being written. This behaviour would
violate MISRA C:2012 Rule 9.1, besides being generally undesirable.
In all the analyzed cases, such accesses were actually safe, but it's
quite difficult to
12 matches
Mail list logo
