[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hw/slavio_intctl.c: fix gcc warning about array bou
From: |
Peter Maydell |
Subject: |
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hw/slavio_intctl.c: fix gcc warning about array bounds overrun |
Date: |
Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:42:26 +0000 |
The Ubuntu 10.10 gcc for ARM complains that we might be overrunning
the cpu_irqs[][] array: silence this by correcting the bounds on the
loop. (In fact we would not have overrun the array because bit
MAX_PILS in pil_pending and irl_out will always be 0.)
Also add a comment about why the loop's lower bound is OK.
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
---
I've tested that with this change we still boot the sparc
Debian image from http://people.debian.org/~aurel32/qemu/sparc/
and the change makes sense according to my understanding of
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/historic-linux/early-ports/Sparc/NCR/NCR89C105.txt
hw/slavio_intctl.c | 7 ++++++-
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/slavio_intctl.c b/hw/slavio_intctl.c
index fd69354..a83e5b8 100644
--- a/hw/slavio_intctl.c
+++ b/hw/slavio_intctl.c
@@ -289,7 +289,12 @@ static void slavio_check_interrupts(SLAVIO_INTCTLState *s,
int set_irqs)
pil_pending |= (s->slaves[i].intreg_pending & CPU_SOFTIRQ_MASK) >> 16;
if (set_irqs) {
- for (j = MAX_PILS; j > 0; j--) {
+ /* Since there is not really an interrupt 0 (and pil_pending
+ * and irl_out bit zero are thus always zero) there is no need
+ * to do anything with cpu_irqs[i][0] and it is OK not to do
+ * the j=0 iteration of this loop.
+ */
+ for (j = MAX_PILS-1; j > 0; j--) {
if (pil_pending & (1 << j)) {
if (!(s->slaves[i].irl_out & (1 << j))) {
qemu_irq_raise(s->cpu_irqs[i][j]);
--
1.7.1
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hw/slavio_intctl.c: fix gcc warning about array bounds overrun,
Peter Maydell <=