[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53C98055.5070301@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:15:17 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the tip tree
On 07/18/2014 01:08 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> i isn't an index in to the syms array at all. This code is completely
> wrong. See the patch I sent in reply to Stephen's original email.
>
> But, to your earlier point, presumably this could warn:
>
> for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
> if (array[i] > array[5] + 1)
> fail();
>
> I think that's absurd. There's nothing wrong with that code. A given
> test should have to be always true or always false on *all* loop
> iterations to be flagged, I think.
>
No, the issue is that gcc is telling you that the code will do the wrong
thing in this case. Yes, only for one iteration, but still.
The reason this is a concern is that: (x > x + n) and its variants is
often used to mean (x > INT_MAX - n) without the type knowledge, but
that is actually invalid standard C because signed types are not
guaranteed to wrap.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists