hawkinsw added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/tools/intel-features/intel-mpx/cli-wrapper-mpxtable.cpp:66
- if ((lbound == one_cmpl64 || one_cmpl32) && ubound == 0) {
result.Printf("Null bounds on map: pointer value = 0x%" PRIu64 "\n",
value);
----------------
DavidSpickett wrote:
> hawkinsw wrote:
> > According to
> > https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/operator_precedence, I would
> > read the left operand of the `&&` as
> >
> > 1. The `==` has higher precedence than `||` so, `b = (lbound ==
> > one_compl64)`
> > 2. `b || one_cmpl32`
> >
> > which does not seem like what the original author intended. I absolutely
> > think that the fix is correct, but I just wanted to get everyone's feedback
> > on whether this seems like more than just a "suspicious bitwise expression"
> > (and more like a "mistaken bitwise expression").
> >
> > All that said, I could be completely, 100% wrong. And, if I am, feel free
> > to ignore me!
> The corrected code also makes sense given that MPX is some kind of memory
> protection across ranges.
>
> If `((lbound == one_cmpl64 || lbound == one_cmpl32) && ubound == 0)` is true
> then upper bound < lower bound making an invalid range. Which is what I'd
> expect for some default/uninitialised state (especially if zero size ranges
> are allowed, so upper == 0 and lower == 0 couldn't be used).
@DavidSpickett I think that you and I are saying the same thing, right? We are
both saying that the corrected code looks much "better" than the original?
Will
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D131312/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D131312
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
