On Do, 2015-06-18 at 06:45 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
On Do, 2015-06-18 at 05:58 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
For the same reason there is the v = l test.
The v = l test state that the value can be out of range so it not always
a
constant in the range.
Adding the v 0 check
For the same reason there is the v = l test.
The v = l test state that the value can be out of range so it not always a
constant in the range.
Adding the v 0 check for every invalid value. As these are executed only for
logging should not be a performance penalty.
I also hope the compiler is
On Do, 2015-06-18 at 05:58 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
For the same reason there is the v = l test.
The v = l test state that the value can be out of range so it not always a
constant in the range.
Adding the v 0 check for every invalid value. As these are executed only
for logging
On Do, 2015-06-18 at 05:58 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
For the same reason there is the v = l test.
The v = l test state that the value can be out of range so it not always a
constant in the range.
Adding the v 0 check for every invalid value. As these are executed only
for logging
11.06.2015 16:17, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
In qxl_v2n check that value is not negative.
Why do you think it is necessary?
Thanks,
/mjt
Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio fzig...@redhat.com
---
hw/display/qxl-logger.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
