1 files changed, 44 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/results/classifier/105/other/1655700 b/results/classifier/105/other/1655700
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..f480da47
--- /dev/null
+++ b/results/classifier/105/other/1655700
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+other: 0.749
+graphic: 0.726
+mistranslation: 0.575
+device: 0.571
+vnc: 0.537
+socket: 0.411
+network: 0.378
+semantic: 0.311
+KVM: 0.286
+instruction: 0.254
+boot: 0.188
+assembly: 0.175
+
+disas/libvixl/vixl/invalset.h: possible dodgy code in binary search ?
+
+
+[qemu/disas/libvixl/vixl/invalset.h:442]: (style) Array index 'low' is used before limits check.
+
+Source code is
+
+    while (!IsValid(elements[low]) && (low < high)) ++low;
+
+Also:
+
+qemu/disas/libvixl/vixl/invalset.h:450]: (style) Array index 'middle' is used before limits check.
+
+The source code is
+
+   while (!IsValid(elements[high]) && (low < high)) --high;
+
+Mind you, these lines of code look similar but didn't get reported:
+
+    while (!IsValid(elements[middle]) && (middle < high - 1)) ++middle;
+    while (!IsValid(elements[middle]) && (low + 1 < middle)) --middle;
+
+Given that binary search is notoriously tricky to get correct and a standard C library routine
+I am puzzled as to why the standard library routine didn't get used, with of course a custom
+comparison function.
+
+That doesn't look like a bounds check to me, so I think your checker is producing false positives.
+
+libvixl is third-party code in any case, so stylistic questions are better directed to them upstream. But I think the difference between this code and a standard binary search is (as the comment says) that it ignores invalid elements in the array.
+
+