Skip to content

Conversation

Patater
Copy link
Contributor

@Patater Patater commented Jun 8, 2017

WIP for RPC (no gateway yet)

@AlessandroA @niklas-arm

Patater added 4 commits June 8, 2017 15:46
To avoid undefined behavior, replace the signed "times" counter with an unsigned one. We don't need to track negative times anyway.

./core/vmpu/src/mpu_armv8m/vmpu_armv8m_unpriv_access.c: In function 'vmpu_unpriv_access':
./core/vmpu/src/mpu_armv8m/vmpu_armv8m_unpriv_access.c:126:1: error: assuming signed overflow does not occur when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1 [-Werror=strict-overflow]
 }
  ^
  ./core/vmpu/src/mpu_armv8m/vmpu_armv8m_unpriv_access.c:94:10: error: assuming signed overflow does not occur when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1 [-Werror=strict-overflow]
   uint32_t vmpu_unpriv_access(uint32_t addr, uint32_t size, uint32_t data)
To ensure our sanity checks stay sane, it's good to make sure we aren't
invoking undefined overflow behavior. Make the compiler warn us when it
attempts to take advantage of undefined overflow in optimizing.
@p03189
Copy link

p03189 commented Aug 23, 2017

In api/src/rpc2.c (commit: rpc2: Add RPC2),
line 105

if (timeout_ms == 0) {

Shouldn't the condition be "timeout_ms != 0" ?

@Patater
Copy link
Contributor Author

Patater commented Aug 23, 2017

@p03189 No. The current API interprets a timeout of 0 as "let me know if it is done yet, without any blocking". Any other timeout value will be interpreted as "block forever until it is done".

@p03189
Copy link

p03189 commented Aug 23, 2017

Oh, thank you.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants