mudflap cache question

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -


Herman ten Brugge <hermantenbrugge@home.nl> writes:

> [...]
> I looked at the code in mf-runtime.c and found the cache
> functions. The code [...]
> __mf_uncache_object (__mf_object_t *old_obj)
>  [...]
>       unsigned idx_low = __MF_CACHE_INDEX (low);
>       unsigned idx_high = __MF_CACHE_INDEX (high);
>       for (i = idx_low; i <= idx_high; i++)
>           [... check cache slot at index i ...]
> [...]
> __MF_CACHE_INDEX(ptr) is (ptr >> 2) & 0x3ff at startup.
>
> Suppose we have an old_obj->low of 0x10000 and an old_obj->high of
> 0x20000. Then the cache entries we look at is just entry 0. Which I
> believe is just wrong.  Any pointer between 0x10000 and 0x20000 must
> fill other cache entries. [...]

You're right, one can't treat this way a data structure that is trying
to be a hash table.  Probably this wasn't found before because it
would result in false no-error indications, which are quiet.

> Should I write a bug report?

Not necessary, this is fine.  Thank you.


- FChE