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 f
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 fu
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.
>
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.
-Brian
_
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.
Jose
- Original Message -
> The warnings were:
> nv50_pc_regalloc.c: In function ‘pass_
The warnings were:
nv50_pc_regalloc.c: In function ‘pass_generate_phi_movs’:
nv50_pc_regalloc.c:423:41: warning: array subscript is above array bounds
codegen/nv50_ir_peephole.cpp: In member function ‘bool
nv50_ir::MemoryOpt::replaceStFromSt(nv50_ir::Instruction*,
nv50_ir::MemoryOpt::Record*)’:
c
