On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Please, drop what you have already pulled and take the
> following instead.
I am reviewing the pull request, here is some of the feed back for the memcpy
patch.
For -fmemcpy-max-count and -Wmemcpy-max-count, do we actually need to
have two separate options here? -fmemcpy-max-count set to zero will disable
this warning any way.
unsigned long long val = count->value;
- if (Wmemcpy_max_count && val > 100000ULL)
-
+ if (Wmemcpy_max_count && val > fmemcpy_max_count)
If we only use one option, for example fmemcpy_max_count,
we can do:
if ( fmemcpy_max_count && val > fmemcpy_max_count)
That way we don't need to set fmemcpy_max_count to ~0ULL.
+ if (val == 0)
+ val = ~0ULL;
+ fmemcpy_max_count = val;
Even if we decide to have two options, -Wmemcpy-max-coun can totally
set the fmemcpy_max_count to 0 to disable it.
Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
