On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Søren Sandmann
wrote:
> Sure. The extra width check can't harm.
>
Actually it can, because it implies that such values *can* arrive at this
function, leading programmers to add tests to the calling functions, thus
leading to a large
Sure. The extra width check can't harm.
Søren
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Siarhei Siamashka <
siarhei.siamas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:43:46 -0400
> Søren Sandmann wrote:
>
> > Regardless of who ends up listed as the patch author, this is
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:34:51 +0200
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:
> Siarhei Siamashka skribis:
>
> > Sorry, I forgot to mention
> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/pixman/tree/README?id=pixman-0.33.2#n46
> >
> > We would also need a commit message for the
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:43:46 -0400
Søren Sandmann wrote:
> Regardless of who ends up listed as the patch author, this is
>
> Reviewed-by: soren.sandm...@gmail.com
>
> Søren
Thanks! Is your Reviewed-by still valid after adding an extra
"width <= 0" check to the patch?
Regardless of who ends up listed as the patch author, this is
Reviewed-by: soren.sandm...@gmail.com
Søren
On Sep 21, 2015 3:07 PM, "Siarhei Siamashka"
wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:10:36 +0200
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > The patch
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:10:36 +0200
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The patch below intends to fix an arithmetic overflow occurring in a
> pointer arithmetic context in ‘general_composite_rect’, as explained at:
>
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92027#c6