Am 05.05.2019 um 13:38 schrieb Tom Rini:
On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 08:16:38PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
Tom,
Am 26.04.2019 um 13:00 schrieb Marek Vasut:
On 4/26/19 12:19 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:56 AM Marek Vasut marek.vasut@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/26/19 11:36 AM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:32 AM Marek Vasut marek.vasut@gmail.com wrote: > > On 4/26/19 8:19 AM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: >> Marek Vasut marek.vasut@gmail.com schrieb am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019, 00:22: >> >>> On 4/25/19 9:22 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: >>>> If the malloc range passed to mem_malloc_init() is at the end of address >>>> range and 'start + size' overflows to 0, following allocations fail as >>>> mem_malloc_end is zero (which looks like uninitialized). >>>> >>>> Fix this by subtracting 1 of 'start + size' overflows to zero. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Goldschmidt simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com
Since there's no way this fits without breaking smartweb, I'd rather drop this for now in order to get 1/2 accepted.
I thought that with 1/2 this fit again, with gcc-7.3 at least? Thanks!
I'm not sure, as I don't have it here to test. But as this patch doesn't actually fix a board but fixes an issue in the code that *might* appear in the future, I'm not convinced it would be the right thing to merge it like it is.
And I'm also a little short on time to investigate this further, as it's not a real bug, currently.
Regards, Simon