Re: [PULL 06/29] softfloat: Move compare_floats to softfloat-parts.c.inc

[Peter Maydell]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 18:54, Richard Henderson
<richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 3/31/22 04:46, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > FWIW, the Coverity issues are CID 1487134, 1487139, 1487151, 1487184,
> > where for some reason it thinks that floatx80_compare() and
> > floatx80_compare_quiet() can return 3 and thus that there is a
> > potential array overrun. (I've marked these all as false positives
> > in the UI, anyway.)
>
> Interesting about '3'.  I'll have a look.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to give its reasoning for deciding
that the function can return [-1..3] rather than [-1..2].
But maybe it will make more sense to you.

PS: while you're there, there are also a bunch of new TCG related
issues where it alleges array indexes being out of bounds. I
suspect these are false positives, but it's probably faster
for you to analyse them. (I have a feeling Coverity can get
confused and claim an error because it's looking at an array
size it has cached from one target's NB_MMU_MODES value and
a code flow for a different target with a different NB_MMU_MODES.)

-- PMM