Re: Fix overflow check in sys/kern/kern_time.c

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:58:42 -0400, Michael McConville wrote: > I'm not sure whether avoiding incrementing here is an ideal move, but > this diff definitely works toward a local optimum. Namely, that error > check is technically meaningless because signed overflow is undefined. > > ok? Or would

Re: Fix overflow check in sys/kern/kern_time.c

Mark Kettenis wrote: > > I'm not sure whether avoiding incrementing here is an ideal move, but > > this diff definitely works toward a local optimum. Namely, that error > > check is technically meaningless because signed overflow is undefined. > > Within the kernel, signed overflow actually is

Re: Fix overflow check in sys/kern/kern_time.c

> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:58:42 -0400 > From: Michael McConville > > I'm not sure whether avoiding incrementing here is an ideal move, but > this diff definitely works toward a local optimum. Namely, that error > check is technically meaningless because signed overflow is

Fix overflow check in sys/kern/kern_time.c

I'm not sure whether avoiding incrementing here is an ideal move, but this diff definitely works toward a local optimum. Namely, that error check is technically meaningless because signed overflow is undefined. ok? Or would people prefer a solution that's robust to changing *curpps's type?