On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 01:09:22PM +0800, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 07:44:05PM +0200, Paul Chaignon wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 08:55:22PM +0800, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 05:34:08PM +0200, Paul Chaignon wrote: > [...] [...] > Acked-by: Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@xxxxxxxx> > > Maybe add the check right after 'tnum_is_const(t1) && tnum_is_const(t2)' > check, and before 'umin/umax/smin/smax' check though? Bunching tnum > usage together for aesthetic. Done in the v2. Thanks again for the review! > > > ... That > > said, if others prefer the xor version, I don't mind much :) > > FWIW I'd ideally would like tnum_intersect to return 'false' if no > intersection can be found (similar to check_add_overflow), then we can > use it here. And forcing check to always be done should help avoid > running into some of the register bound violations. But such change felt > too intrusive for the purpose of this patchset, maybe for a future > refactor. > > __must_check bool tnum_intersect(struct tnum a, struct tnum b, struct tnum *out) I like the idea :) When checking the returned value in reg_bounds_sync and regs_refine_cond_op, we would probably want to throw a verifier bug, but that doesn't look too invasive.
