Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/31/2010 08:11 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 08/31/2010 02:10 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Eric, I've listed you as an author, so will wait for your ACK.
>>>
From 5bcff7b85b7b88fa4809ad874a1203e27abed085 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Eric Blake
>>> Date: Tue, 31 Aug
On 08/31/2010 08:11 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 08/31/2010 02:10 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Eric, I've listed you as an author, so will wait for your ACK.
From 5bcff7b85b7b88fa4809ad874a1203e27abed085 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Eric Blake
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:06:16 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] h
On 08/31/2010 02:10 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Eric, I've listed you as an author, so will wait for your ACK.
From 5bcff7b85b7b88fa4809ad874a1203e27abed085 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Eric Blake
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:06:16 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] hash: factor, and guard against misbehaving
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/30/2010 05:09 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>>> - if (! (bucket< table->bucket_limit))
>>> + if (! (bucket&& bucket< table->bucket_limit))
>>> abort ();
>>
>> I would not apply this, because it causes a slowdown at runtime
>> for no good reason.
>
> Hmm
Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
>> - if (! (bucket < table->bucket_limit))
>> + if (! (bucket && bucket < table->bucket_limit))
>> abort ();
>
> I would not apply this, because it causes a slowdown at runtime
> for no good reason.
>
> I think the paragraph that Paul cited just three hours
On 08/30/2010 05:09 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Hi Eric,
- if (! (bucket< table->bucket_limit))
+ if (! (bucket&& bucket< table->bucket_limit))
abort ();
I would not apply this, because it causes a slowdown at runtime
for no good reason.
Hmm - I see the point of the original abort(),
Hi Eric,
> - if (! (bucket < table->bucket_limit))
> + if (! (bucket && bucket < table->bucket_limit))
> abort ();
I would not apply this, because it causes a slowdown at runtime
for no good reason.
I think the paragraph that Paul cited just three hours ago
"Don't make the program ugl
* lib/hash.c (hash_get_next): Aid clang analysis.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake
---
Jim, should we apply this? As far as I can tell, this is
an example of a shortfall in clang 2.7, as shipped in Fedora 13.
Clang assumed that the for loop at line 310 is skipped because
cursor is NULL, which implies
