On 12/19/2014 11:58 AM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 12/18/2014 10:14 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 09:11:26 PM Chad Versace wrote:
>>> This patch reduces the likelihood of pointer arithmetic overflow bugs in
>>> gather_oa_results(), like the one fixed by b69c7c5dac.
>>
On 12/18/2014 10:14 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 09:11:26 PM Chad Versace wrote:
>> This patch reduces the likelihood of pointer arithmetic overflow bugs in
>> gather_oa_results(), like the one fixed by b69c7c5dac.
>>
>> I haven't yet encountered any overflow bugs in t
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 09:11:26 PM Chad Versace wrote:
> This patch reduces the likelihood of pointer arithmetic overflow bugs in
> gather_oa_results(), like the one fixed by b69c7c5dac.
>
> I haven't yet encountered any overflow bugs in the wild along this
> patch's codepath. But I get ner
This patch reduces the likelihood of pointer arithmetic overflow bugs in
gather_oa_results(), like the one fixed by b69c7c5dac.
I haven't yet encountered any overflow bugs in the wild along this
patch's codepath. But I get nervous when I see code patterns like this:
(void*) + (int) * (int)
I
This patch reduces the likelihood of pointer arithmetic overflow bugs in
gather_oa_results(), like the one fixed by b69c7c5dac.
I haven't yet encountered any overflow bugs in the wild along this
patch's codepath. But I get nervous when I see code patterns like this:
(void*) + (int) * (int)
I
