On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 05:27, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> 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$210_NCPUS) is *not* > sufficient, but assert(i <= EXYNOS4210_NCPUS) within the loop *is* > enough. I've updated my patch accordingly. > > This isn't 4.2 material, obviously. Should I just sit on it until 5.0 > opens, or does one of you have someplace to stage the patch in the > meanwhile?
Easy fixes for compiler warnings aren't inherently out of scope for 4.2. I'm also collecting stuff for 5.0 anyway so I suggest you just send the patch. -- PMM
