Hi Paul. Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> On 3/22/19 7:49 PM, Norihiro Tanaka wrote: > > Missing a patch for dfa. Re-send correct patch file. > > Thanks, I installed the DFA-relevant parts of your proposed fix into > Gnulib. (The grep parts still need doing.) I also installed the attached > commentary followup. > > While I was at it I installed a patch to fix an unlikely integer > overflow that I noticed while reviewing your fix. I also installed some > internal changes to prefer signed to unsigned integers for indexes, as > this should make future integer overflows easier to catch. See: > > https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2019-12/msg00058.html > https://lists.gnu.org/r/bug-gnulib/2019-12/msg00059.html I am reviewing these. In general using signed integers internally looks OK to me. > I'd also like to change dfa.h's API to prefer ptrdiff_t to size_t, for > the same integer-overflow reason. This would be a (minor) API change so > I thought I'd ask first. Any objections? Yes. I object. Strongly. We're passing length and count values and those are supposed to be size_t. If you REALLY want signed values, then I could live with ssize_t (as returned by read(2), for example), but I would find ptrdiff_t to be ugly and unintuitive. > PS. Arnold, the above discusses all the changes I know about for dfa.c > and dfa.h. The proposed API change (size_t->ptrdiff_t) could be > installed either before or after the next Gawk release. Thanks. I'm skimming the other changes now. Arnold
