On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 08:16:38PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > Tom, > > Am 26.04.2019 um 13:00 schrieb Marek Vasut: > >On 4/26/19 12:19 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >>On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:56 AM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>On 4/26/19 11:36 AM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >>>>On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:32 AM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> > >>>>wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>On 4/26/19 8:19 AM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >>>>>>Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> schrieb am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019, > >>>>>>00:22: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>On 4/25/19 9:22 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >>>>>>>>If the malloc range passed to mem_malloc_init() is at the end of > >>>>>>>>address > >>>>>>>>range and 'start + size' overflows to 0, following allocations fail as > >>>>>>>>mem_malloc_end is zero (which looks like uninitialized). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Fix this by subtracting 1 of 'start + size' overflows to zero. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Signed-off-by: Simon Goldschmidt <simon.k.r.goldschm...@gmail.com> > > Since there's no way this fits without breaking smartweb, I'd rather drop > this for now in order to get 1/2 accepted.
I thought that with 1/2 this fit again, with gcc-7.3 at least? Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
