On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:31:48AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 05:27, David Gibson
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 01:51:39PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > If we assert() that num_cpu is always <= EXYNOS4210_NCPUS
> > > is that sufficient to clue gcc in that
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 05:27, David Gibson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 01:51:39PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > If we assert() that num_cpu is always <= EXYNOS4210_NCPUS
> > is that sufficient to clue gcc in that the buffer can't overflow?
>
> Interestingly, assert(s->num_cpu <= EXYNOS$21
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 01:51:39PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 04:10, David Gibson wrote:
> >
> > exynos4210_gic_realize() prints the number of cpus into some temporary
> > buffers, but it only allows 3 bytes space for it. That's plenty - I'm
> > pretty sure that existing
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 04:10, David Gibson wrote:
>
> exynos4210_gic_realize() prints the number of cpus into some temporary
> buffers, but it only allows 3 bytes space for it. That's plenty - I'm
> pretty sure that existing machines will only ever set this value to 2
> (EXYNOS4210_NCPUS). But th
On 10/4/19 4:55 AM, David Gibson wrote:
exynos4210_gic_realize() prints the number of cpus into some temporary
buffers, but it only allows 3 bytes space for it. That's plenty - I'm
pretty sure that existing machines will only ever set this value to 2
(EXYNOS4210_NCPUS). But the compiler can't r
exynos4210_gic_realize() prints the number of cpus into some temporary
buffers, but it only allows 3 bytes space for it. That's plenty - I'm
pretty sure that existing machines will only ever set this value to 2
(EXYNOS4210_NCPUS). But the compiler can't really be expected to figure
that out.
Som
