On 2013-01-16 18:40, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
That said, I question the change of <= to == 0. If negative, we don't
know how much overlap there is as far as I can see.
Why not? Since the addresses are constants, and the negative sizes are
just the adjusted sizes, negated to indicate they were conservatively
lengthened by an alignment operation...
Oh, right.
This hunk is not needed, as we begin by eliminating <= 0. So the abs
is certain to do nothing.
The function I'll introduce to keep the expressions the same will have
the abs and I'll use it here, but you're right that after testing for
negative sizes they abses won't make much of a difference.
Sure.
r~
