)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":1001667,"name":"Jan Matyas","email":"jan.matyas@codasip.com","username":"JanMatCodasip"},"change_message_id":"d44937b553db4abf5b06d43241193decf94949d9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"b7b52205_5d74196e","updated":"2024-08-29 08:28:16.000000000","message":"LGTM, and has potential to catch programmer errors.\n\nThank you.","commit_id":"3c24d340c93bf88e436b1740bb5863ae14f9690e"},{"author":{"_account_id":1002161,"name":"Anatoly P","email":"kupokupokupopo@gmail.com","username":"ecco_the_dolphin"},"change_message_id":"6d7f56ecc04462255fc8124c8de24d08c013a478","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"7e1a3f71_35fe5745","updated":"2024-08-03 19:23:32.000000000","message":"Some additional context for the change. I was testing openocd (riscv-openocd fork) compiled with ubsan against the internal testsuite and detected a case of improper usage of `buf_set_u32`. The issue with backtrace is documented here: \n https://github.com/riscv-collab/riscv-openocd/issues/1107 - this is a recent regression in riscv fork (the codebase in this repository is not affected). However, I think that having extra asserts in low-level buf_set/buf_get functions  openocd may be beneficial to catch cases when then number of bits is specified incorrectly.","commit_id":"3c24d340c93bf88e436b1740bb5863ae14f9690e"},{"author":{"_account_id":1000687,"name":"Tomas Vanek","display_name":"Tomas Vanek","email":"vanekt@fbl.cz","username":"vanekt"},"change_message_id":"2bcb9b3e93d3efd6206cd922f374eba1984d4400","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"54929cd4_ae8b9745","updated":"2024-08-19 08:48:11.000000000","message":"This assert() usage seems me reasonable. What do you think, Antonio?","commit_id":"3c24d340c93bf88e436b1740bb5863ae14f9690e"}]}