richardvo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko > <phco...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Robert Millan wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> -Werror is not in effect. This will help ensuring that all new code is >>> checked to be warning-free before commit (incidentally, I found a newly >>> introduced bug thanks to this just minutes before enabling it). >>> >>> >>> >> If you mean this change: >> >> + /* Any value different than `p.offset' will satisfy the check during >> + first loop. */ >> + lastaddr = !p.offset; >> + >> >> Then there was no bug here. >> if (labeln && lastaddr == p.offset) >> return grub_error (GRUB_ERR_BAD_PART_TABLE, "loop detected"); >> >> labeln++; >> if ((labeln & (labeln - 1)) == 0) >> > > This is a check for being an integral power of 2 (or 0), i.e. having a > single bit set. Was that the intent? It's probably worth an > explanatory comment for the sake of those who aren't familiar with the > test. > > Read the code. There is a comment >> lastaddr = p.offset; >> >> labeln is 0 during first loop run and then lastaddr is set. I explicitly >> omitted initing variables to have smaller loop detector >> > > I suspect initializing lastaddr, which takes place outside the loop, > is less expensive than testing labeln on every iteration. > > We optimise for size, not for speed. >>> Since -Werror may be a problem in some situations, I've added a >>> --disable-werror switch, which does the obvious thing. >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Grub-devel mailing list >> Grub-devel@gnu.org >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel > >
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
