On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 07:38:08PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 08:44:28PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> >> +
>> >> + for (shadow = shadow_first; shadow <= shadow_last; shadow++) {
>> >> + if (*shadow != tag) {
>> >> + /* Report invalid-access bug here */
>> >> + return;
>> >
>> > Huh? Should that be a TODO?
>>
>> This is fixed in one of the next commits. I decided to split the main
>> runtime logic and the reporting parts, so this comment is a
>> placeholder, which is replaced with the proper error reporting
>> function call later in the patch series. I can make it a /* TODO:
>> comment */, if you think that looks better.
>
> It might be preferable to introdcue the report functions first (i.e.
> swap this patch with the next one).
>
> Those will be unused, but since they're not static, you shouldn't get
> any build warnings. Then the hooks can call the report functions as soon
> as they're introduced.
Will do, thanks!
