Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Fix signed overflow
From: Kevin Cox <kevincox () kevincox ca>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:41:13 -0500
On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 10:46 -0500, Michael McConville wrote:
Signed overflow is undefined, so the overflow check below is technically meaningless. Because we're only checking whether an increment will overflow, we can compare j to G_MAXINT instead.
This is an important fix. The compiler is allowed to (and often will) just omit that checking code and replace with with a false because it can never evaluate to true using only defined behaviour. That check is effectively useless as currently written.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description:
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Fix signed overflow Michael McConville (Feb 11)
- Re: Fix signed overflow Michael Mann (Feb 11)
- Re: Fix signed overflow Guy Harris (Feb 11)
- Re: Fix signed overflow Kevin Cox (Feb 11)
- Re: Fix signed overflow Michael Mann (Feb 11)