From: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
Coverity complains about passing "&expected" to "run_range_inverse_array",
which dereferences null "expected". I guess the problem is that the
compare_ranges() loop dereferences 'e' without testing it. However the
loop condition is based on 'ranges' which is garanteed to have
the same length as 'expected' given the g_assert_cmpint() just
before the loop. So the code looks safe to me.
Nevertheless adding a test on expected before the loop to get rid of the
warning.
Fixes: CID 1523901
Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
Reported-by: Coverity (CID 1523901)
Message-ID: <20231110083654.277345-1-eric.au...@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
---
tests/unit/test-resv-mem.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/unit/test-resv-mem.c b/tests/unit/test-resv-mem.c
index 5963274e2c..cd8f7318cc 100644
--- a/tests/unit/test-resv-mem.c
+++ b/tests/unit/test-resv-mem.c
@@ -44,6 +44,10 @@ static void compare_ranges(const char *prefix, GList *ranges,
print_ranges("out", ranges);
print_ranges("expected", expected);
#endif
+ if (!expected) {
+ g_assert_true(!ranges);
+ return;
+ }
g_assert_cmpint(g_list_length(ranges), ==, g_list_length(expected));
for (l = ranges, e = expected; l ; l = l->next, e = e->next) {
Range *r = (Range *)l->data;
--
2.41.0
