On Apr 14, 2014 11:52 AM, "Dave Rutherford" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:22 PM, David Binderman
wrote:
> > Anyone experienced looking at the code will always need to examine it
> > more closely to find out why it's a good idea in this case to use an
array
> > index and *then* sanity chec
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:22 PM, David Binderman wrote:
> Anyone experienced looking at the code will always need to examine it
> more closely to find out why it's a good idea in this case to use an array
> index and *then* sanity check it's value.
But in this case it's a limiting check, not a b
On 04/14/2014 10:22 AM, David Binderman wrote:
> Hello there,
>
>
>> But my point remains to the original poster: a patch
>> without justification is unlikely to be applied. Document WHY you think
>> the existing code is a bug, not just HOW to fix it, for y
Hello there,
> But my point remains to the original poster: a patch
> without justification is unlikely to be applied. Document WHY you think
> the existing code is a bug, not just HOW to fix it, for your patch to be
> usefully considered.
Standard softwar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/14/14, 11:19 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/14/2014 08:50 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 4/14/14, 5:34 AM, David Binderman wrote:
>>> Hello there,
>>>
>>> [bind.c:2238]: (style) Array index 'j' is used before limits check.
>>>
>>> Source code is
>>>
On 04/14/2014 09:35 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Eric Blake writes:
>
>> In that case, the index check is dead code,
>
> No. You don't understand.
Fair enough. But my point remains to the original poster: a patch
without justification is unlikely to be applied. Document WHY you think
the exist
Eric Blake writes:
> In that case, the index check is dead code,
No. You don't understand.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."
On 04/14/2014 09:26 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Eric Blake writes:
>
>> It silences static code checkers and avoids undefined C behavior.
>>
>> Also, if invokers[] is allocated such that it ends on the end of a page
>> boundary (such as might be the case under certain malloc debuggers),
>> then d
On 04/14/2014 08:50 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 4/14/14, 5:34 AM, David Binderman wrote:
>> Hello there,
>>
>> [bind.c:2238]: (style) Array index 'j' is used before limits check.
>>
>> Source code is
>>
>> for (j = 0; invokers[j] && j < 5; j++)
>>
>> Suggest new code
>>
>> for (
Eric Blake writes:
> It silences static code checkers and avoids undefined C behavior.
>
> Also, if invokers[] is allocated such that it ends on the end of a page
> boundary (such as might be the case under certain malloc debuggers),
> then doing the bounds check first will avoid an out-of-bounds
On 4/14/14, 5:34 AM, David Binderman wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> [bind.c:2238]: (style) Array index 'j' is used before limits check.
>
> Source code is
>
> for (j = 0; invokers[j] && j < 5; j++)
>
> Suggest new code
>
> for (j = 0; (j < 5) && (invokers[j] != NULL); j++)
Can
11 matches
Mail list logo
