Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2018-05-22 13:22:32)
> On 22/05/18 13:10, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > nospec quite reasonably asserts that it will never be used with an index
> > larger than unsigned long (that being the largest possibly index into an
> > C array). However, our ubi uses the convention of u6
On 22/05/18 13:10, Chris Wilson wrote:
nospec quite reasonably asserts that it will never be used with an index
larger than unsigned long (that being the largest possibly index into an
C array). However, our ubi uses the convention of u64 for any large
integer, running afoul of the assertion on 3
Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-05-22 13:17:06)
> Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2018-05-22 13:13:03)
> > On 22/05/18 13:10, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > nospec quite reasonably asserts that it will never be used with an index
> > > larger than unsigned long (that being the largest possibly index into an
> > >
Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2018-05-22 13:13:03)
> On 22/05/18 13:10, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > nospec quite reasonably asserts that it will never be used with an index
> > larger than unsigned long (that being the largest possibly index into an
> > C array). However, our ubi uses the convention of u6
On 22/05/18 13:10, Chris Wilson wrote:
nospec quite reasonably asserts that it will never be used with an index
larger than unsigned long (that being the largest possibly index into an
C array). However, our ubi uses the convention of u64 for any large
integer, running afoul of the assertion on 3
nospec quite reasonably asserts that it will never be used with an index
larger than unsigned long (that being the largest possibly index into an
C array). However, our ubi uses the convention of u64 for any large
integer, running afoul of the assertion on 32b. Reduce our index to an
unsigned long,
