Re: FW: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for QEMU

[Peter Maydell]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 at 22:34, Taylor Simpson <tsimpson@quicinc.com> wrote:
>
> Coverity is getting confused here.  The index can never actually overflow.
>  Does Coverity have a pragma or something to tell it it's OK?
>
> The loop nest in question is (the index must be < 128)
>     for (int offset = 1; offset < 128; offset <<= 1) {
>         for (int k = 0; k < 128; k++) {
>             if (!(k & offset)) {
>                 swap(vector1.ub[k], vector0.ub[k + offset]);
>             }
>         }
>     }
> Basically, it's looking for elements to swap, and the
> "if (!(k & offset))" prevents "k + offset" from overflowing.

Yes, I agree this is a false positive. I've marked it as an FP
in the Coverity web UI.

I suspect that changing "k + offset" to "k | offset" would
probably stop Coverity complaining, but we should only do that
if you think it's more readable that way. (As I read the code
we are doing bit operations here rather than addition, so
it seems slightly better to be using the OR; but there's not
a lot in it.)

thanks
-- PMM