Hello,
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:40:46AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 02:16:19PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King
> >
> > The comparisons for integer low on low > INT_MAX and also
> > integer high > INT_MAX are never
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:40:46AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 02:16:19PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King
> >
> > The comparisons for integer low on low > INT_MAX and also
> > integer high > INT_MAX are never going to be true since an
>
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 02:16:19PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The comparisons for integer low on low > INT_MAX and also
> integer high > INT_MAX are never going to be true since an
> int type cannot be greater than INT_MAX. Remove these
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 02:16:19PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The comparisons for integer low on low > INT_MAX and also
> integer high > INT_MAX are never going to be true since an
> int type cannot be greater than INT_MAX. Remove these redundant
> checks.
>
>
From: Colin Ian King
The comparisons for integer low on low > INT_MAX and also
integer high > INT_MAX are never going to be true since an
int type cannot be greater than INT_MAX. Remove these redundant
checks.
Detected by: CoverityScan CID#1455245, 1455248 ("Operands
From: Colin Ian King
The comparisons for integer low on low > INT_MAX and also
integer high > INT_MAX are never going to be true since an
int type cannot be greater than INT_MAX. Remove these redundant
checks.
Detected by: CoverityScan CID#1455245, 1455248 ("Operands don't affect
result
6 matches
Mail list logo