From 1eae02d09dc4ff201b2604317ad64b9e56f15cb1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Duncan Coutts Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:16:24 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Use signed comparison for +RTS -N x <= 0 test Otherwise we can use +RTS -N-1 and get 2^32 or 2^64 capabilities which doesn't work out so well... --- rts/RtsFlags.c | 9 +++++---- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/rts/RtsFlags.c b/rts/RtsFlags.c index dcfedc0..d6da873 100644 --- a/rts/RtsFlags.c +++ b/rts/RtsFlags.c @@ -1074,18 +1074,19 @@ error = rtsTrue; RtsFlags.ParFlags.nNodes = getNumberOfProcessors(); #endif } else { - RtsFlags.ParFlags.nNodes - = strtol(rts_argv[arg]+2, (char **) NULL, 10); - if (RtsFlags.ParFlags.nNodes <= 0) { + int nNodes; + nNodes = strtol(rts_argv[arg]+2, (char **) NULL, 10); + if (nNodes <= 0) { errorBelch("bad value for -N"); error = rtsTrue; } #if defined(PROFILING) - if (RtsFlags.ParFlags.nNodes > 1) { + if (nNodes > 1) { errorBelch("bad option %s: only -N1 is supported with profiling", rts_argv[arg]); error = rtsTrue; } #endif + RtsFlags.ParFlags.nNodes = (nat)nNodes; } ) break; -- 1.7.3.4