libc/stdlib/nano-mallocr.c, typo in variable name
Commit Message
Hi,
Nano malloc uses `size' in assertation whereas the correct variable
would be `s'. Given this has existed ever since nano malloc support was
added, based on the context ("returned payload area of desired size does
not exceed the actual allocated chunk") I presume that indeed `s' (user
input) and not `r->size' (computed) shall be used.
---
Comments
On Aug 28 14:02, Pekka Seppänen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Nano malloc uses `size' in assertation whereas the correct variable would be
> `s'. Given this has existed ever since nano malloc support was added, based
> on the context ("returned payload area of desired size does not exceed the
> actual allocated chunk") I presume that indeed `s' (user input) and not
> `r->size' (computed) shall be used.
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/newlib/libc/stdlib/nano-mallocr.c
> b/newlib/libc/stdlib/nano-mallocr.c
> index a2b50facc..41e69abb0 100644
> --- a/newlib/libc/stdlib/nano-mallocr.c
> +++ b/newlib/libc/stdlib/nano-mallocr.c
> @@ -396,7 +396,7 @@ void * nano_malloc(RARG malloc_size_t s)
> *(long *)((char *)r + offset) = -offset;
> }
>
> - assert(align_ptr + size <= (char *)r + alloc_size);
> + assert(align_ptr + s <= (char *)r + alloc_size);
> return align_ptr;
> }
> #endif /* DEFINE_MALLOC */
Given that r->size == alloc_size, checking for r->size would lead
to the assertion always failing if align_ptr != ptr.
So, yeah, s seems indeed the right choice. Pushed.
Thanks,
Corinna
b/newlib/libc/stdlib/nano-mallocr.c
@@ -396,7 +396,7 @@ void * nano_malloc(RARG malloc_size_t s)
*(long *)((char *)r + offset) = -offset;
}
- assert(align_ptr + size <= (char *)r + alloc_size);
+ assert(align_ptr + s <= (char *)r + alloc_size);
return align_ptr;
}
#endif /* DEFINE_MALLOC */