graphic: 0.726
mistranslation: 0.575
device: 0.571
performance: 0.569
vnc: 0.537
ppc: 0.501
risc-v: 0.438
PID: 0.416
socket: 0.411
files: 0.403
VMM: 0.396
i386: 0.383
x86: 0.379
network: 0.378
arm: 0.353
kernel: 0.337
virtual: 0.315
semantic: 0.311
KVM: 0.286
TCG: 0.276
register: 0.258
architecture: 0.227
hypervisor: 0.221
user-level: 0.208
permissions: 0.208
boot: 0.188
assembly: 0.175
debug: 0.174
peripherals: 0.155

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.