On Do, 2015-06-18 at 06:45 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > On Do, 2015-06-18 at 05:58 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > > For the same reason there is the v >= l test.
> > > The v >= l test state that the value can be out of range so it not always
> > > a
> > > constant in the range.
> > > Addi
> On Do, 2015-06-18 at 05:58 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > For the same reason there is the v >= l test.
> > The v >= l test state that the value can be out of range so it not always a
> > constant in the range.
> > Adding the v < 0 check for every invalid value. As these are executed only
>
On Do, 2015-06-18 at 05:58 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> For the same reason there is the v >= l test.
> The v >= l test state that the value can be out of range so it not always a
> constant in the range.
> Adding the v < 0 check for every invalid value. As these are executed only
> for loggin
For the same reason there is the v >= l test.
The v >= l test state that the value can be out of range so it not always a
constant in the range.
Adding the v < 0 check for every invalid value. As these are executed only for
logging should not be a performance penalty.
I also hope the compiler is
11.06.2015 16:17, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> In qxl_v2n check that value is not negative.
Why do you think it is necessary?
Thanks,
/mjt
> Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio
> ---
> hw/display/qxl-logger.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/display/qxl-logg
