On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Julien Grall wrote: > On 18/10/2023 13:52, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > > On 18/10/2023 14:38, Julien Grall wrote: > > > Hi Nicola, > > > > > > On 18/10/2023 13:30, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > > > > On 17/10/2023 15:28, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > I tested this, and the report is prevented by the ASSERT. It's up to the > > > > maintainers to > > > > decide how do you want to proceed: my suggestion is deviating it, > > > > > > It is not clear to me what would you deviate. Can you clarify? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > The memcpy call, as in: > > > > /* SAF-x-false-positive-eclair */ > > memcpy(d->handle, config->handle, sizeof(d->handle)); > > I am not in favor of this deviation. It could be a false positive today, but > it may not be in the future. > > I much prefer the ASSERT() version or the rework.
Just to be clear about the next steps, Nicola are you OK with sending a patch with the ASSERT or would you prefer Julien or someone else to do it?
