On 8 July 2012 20:12, Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
> wrote:
>> On 8 July 2012 19:32, Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 8 July 2012 13:12, <blauwir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> -static inline uint64_t deposit64(uint64_t value, int start, int length,
>>>>> - uint64_t fieldval)
>>>>> +static inline uint64_t deposit64(uint64_t value, unsigned int start,
>>>>> + unsigned int length, uint64_t fieldval)
>>>>> {
>>>>> uint64_t mask;
>>>>> - assert(start >= 0 && length > 0 && length <= 64 - start);
>>>>> + assert(length > 0 && length <= 64 - start);
>>>>
>>>> This breaks the assertion (consider the case of start == UINT_MAX
>>>> and length == 64).
>>>
>>> The original is equally buggy in other cases since there is no bound
>>> check for the upper limit.
>>
>> For what upper limit? Overlong length or start should both be caught
>> by the third condition in the signed case.
>
> Nice. Why is it written like that, I'd use
> start + length <= 64?
That would fail to handle the case of start == length == INT_MAX.
-- PMM
