Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH v2] tests/i915_pm_rpm: improved strictness and verbosity of i2c subtest

From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: "Vasilev, Oleg" <oleg.vasilev@intel.com>
Cc: "igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org" <igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH v2] tests/i915_pm_rpm: improved strictness and verbosity of i2c subtest
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:26:45 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190617132645.GI5942@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <df8fd2e741a6345aa48168b39e1345fe5294ccbe.camel@intel.com>

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:05:29AM +0000, Vasilev, Oleg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you for the review. I've sent an updated patch.
> 
> On Fri, 2019-06-14 at 18:30 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 04:06:23PM +0300, Oleg Vasilev wrote:
> > > 
> > > +static void format_hex_string(unsigned char edid[static
> > > EDID_LENGTH],
> > > +			      char buf[static EDID_LENGTH * 5 + 1])
> > 
> > What's the deal with those 'static's?
> 
> This enforces an array size to be at least EDID_LENGTH.
> 
> https://hamberg.no/erlend/posts/2013-02-18-static-array-indices.html

Interesting. Ugly, but interesting.

Doesn't look like gcc cares about this at all though. I doesn't even
care if I do silly things like:

int foo(int x[static 8])
{
	return x[20];
}

I guess clang is better?

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev