On 11/23/2015 02:16 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 23.11.2015 um 13:45 schrieb Richard Henderson:
From: John Clarke <[email protected]>
A simple typo in the variable to use when comparing vs the highwater mark.
Reports are that qemu can in fact segfault occasionally due to this mistake.
Signed-off-by: John Clarke <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <[email protected]>
---
tcg/tcg.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tcg/tcg.c b/tcg/tcg.c
index 682af8a..b20ed19 100644
--- a/tcg/tcg.c
+++ b/tcg/tcg.c
@@ -2443,7 +2443,7 @@ int tcg_gen_code(TCGContext *s, tcg_insn_unit
*gen_code_buf)
one operation beginning below the high water mark cannot overrun
the buffer completely. Thus we can test for overflow after
generating code without having to check during generation. */
- if (unlikely(s->code_gen_ptr > s->code_gen_highwater)) {
+ if (unlikely((void *)s->code_ptr > s->code_gen_highwater)) {
return -1;
}
}
Is a comparison of void pointers portable?
Of course. Particularly since these really are pointers into the same
allocated object. That's 100% ANSI C.
code_gen_highwater should be fixed anyway because
in translate-all a difference is calculated with it.
Yes, but we freely make use of this gcc extension in many places.
r~
