On 01.02.2012 16:21, Brian Paul wrote: > On 02/01/2012 08:14 AM, Christoph Bumiller wrote: >> On 01.02.2012 15:23, Brian Paul wrote: >>> On 02/01/2012 03:40 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote: >>>> Silences warnings and fixes potential bugs due to buffer overflow. >>>> >>>> The nv50 maintainers could benefit from sprinkling a few asserts to >>>> catch this early in the future, as it is bound to happen again. >>> >>> Good point. I'll add a couple asserts. >> >> Hm, I don't see any assertions in the commit ... > > Grrr, I forgot to fold them into the commit before pushing. I'll push > them soon. > > >> >> I should really have used something like NV50_MAX_INSN_SRCS in the loop >> in the old code there (nv50_pc_regalloc), but it's scheduled for removal >> anyway ... >> >> As for the optimization pass, I don't see how the compiler can >> statically determine that the array will overflow, > > I was a bit surprised to see the compiler figure that out too. > > >> and it wasn't >> supposed to (maximum store size is 16 bytes, and minimum size of a Value >> (with TGSI input) is 4 bytes, makes 4 Values. >> >> But you're right I should have been more careful with that code, it's >> ... been written at a point where I just wanted to be done with it (but >> still include enough optimizations so as to not produce worse code than >> the old solution). >> >> Thanks for fixing, Christoph >> >> hm, I need to make my compiler spit out better/more warnings ... > > Do you want to cherry-pick these fixes to 8.0? > Yes, seems like the kind of fix that should go into stable.
> -Brian > > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
