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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
