Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] pci: Fix compiler warning (MinGW-w64 gcc 4.9)

[Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1619 bytes --]

On 05/14/2015 02:38 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> i686-w64-mingw32-gcc 4.9.1 from Debian Jessie complains:
> 
> hw/pci/pci.c:938:29: warning:
>  array subscript is above array bounds [-Warray-bounds]
> 
> Using g_assert instead of assert fixes this warning.

Is that because the mingw headers don't properly mark the expansion of
the failed branch of assert() as noreturn, whereas g_assert() does, and
therefore the compiler has more information about what variables must be
if the rest of the function is reached?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
> ---
>  hw/pci/pci.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/pci/pci.c b/hw/pci/pci.c
> index 48f19a3..34f71dc 100644
> --- a/hw/pci/pci.c
> +++ b/hw/pci/pci.c
> @@ -927,8 +927,8 @@ void pci_register_bar(PCIDevice *pci_dev, int region_num,
>      uint64_t wmask;
>      pcibus_t size = memory_region_size(memory);
>  
> -    assert(region_num >= 0);
> -    assert(region_num < PCI_NUM_REGIONS);
> +    g_assert(region_num >= 0);
> +    g_assert(region_num < PCI_NUM_REGIONS);

I must say, this is the strangest way I've ever heard of silencing a
compiler warning.  But if it works and my uneducated guess above about
why is correct,

Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>

Meanwhile, you may want to file a bug to the mingw maintainers that
their header is puny when compared to glibc assert() or to glib's
g_assert, when it comes to giving gcc decent hints.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 604 bytes --]