Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On 25 August 2015 at 15:17, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Stumbled over this while throwing away old mail. Andreas, what do you >> think? > > Seems right to me -- I suspect the original properties code was > written with the assumption that the property field would be > inside the device struct (and so offsets are small). The array > properties code breaks that assumption by allocating a separate > lump of memory with the properties in it; so now there's no > guarantee that the two pointers being subtracted will be > within 4G of each other. > > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > Arguably for consistency the 'arrayoffset' struct member should > also be a ptrdiff_t, though our current uses of it are such > that it'll always be within int range.
Andreas?
