Warn when SGB compatibility is set without old licensee 0x33 #1196
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Rangi42
added
enhancement
Rangi42
force-pushed
the
sgb-old-licensee
branch
from
a6fb6cd to
496d6d6
Compare
ISSOtm
previously requested changes
Nov 1, 2023
Rangi42
force-pushed
the
sgb-old-licensee
branch
from
5ccabf3 to
839644d
Compare
Rangi42
force-pushed
the
sgb-old-licensee
branch
from
839644d to
ea972b9
Compare
ISSOtm
approved these changes
Nov 2, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #1150
There are three test cases related to this:
sgbsets the SGB flag, does not specify the old licensee, but it's OK because the old licensee was already 0x33 (it wasn't before but this PR makes it so)sgb-licenseesets the SGB flag, and specifies the old licensee as 0x69, so it gets a warningsgb-old-licenseesets the SGB flag, does not specify the old licensee, and gets a warning because the old licensee was 0xc5 (new test case for this PR)