Em dom., 14 de abr. de 2024 às 20:38, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 11:17, Ranier Vilela <ranier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Coverity has reported some out-of-bounds bugs > > related to the GetCommandTagName function. > > > > The size of the array is defined by COMMAND_TAG_NEXTTAG enum, > > whose value currently corresponds to 193. > > Since enum items are evaluated starting at zero, by default. > > I think the change makes sense. I don't see any good reason to define > COMMAND_TAG_NEXTTAG or force the compiler's hand when it comes to > sizing that array. > > Clearly, Coverity does not understand that we'll never call any of > those GetCommandTag* functions with COMMAND_TAG_NEXTTAG. > I think that Coverity understood it this way because when including COMMAND_TAG_NEXTTAG, in the enum definition, led to 193 items, and the last item in the array is currently 192. > > Patch attached. > > You seem to have forgotten to attach it, but my comments above were > written with the assumption that the patch is what I've attached here. > Yes, I actually forgot. +1 for your patch. best regards, Ranier Vilela
