P.S.:
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20220906193906.l5sy8%[email protected]>:
|Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote in
| <20220906183821.1f82672d@nbbrfq>:
||On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 01:43:26 +0200
||Steffen Nurpmeso <[email protected]> wrote:
...
||> + if(su_64( i > U32_MAX || ) i >= UZ_MAX / 2 ||
||
||I have to admit that the amount of macro maze makes it really hard to
||read ;)
...
Now i remember where this comes from! The first protects the ++i,
as it originally was
if(su_64( i >= U32_MAX || ) ++i >= UZ_MAX / 2)
goto jenomem;
and is again here. Yes! But
if(i >= UZ_MAX / 2)
goto jenomem;
++i;
is of course also not wrong. Sigh. It was quite some back and
forth, operator stack as POD or struct, all first a function local
and then later part of struct a_shexp_arith_stack, somewhen in
between these changes that was reordered and lost. So anyway that
su_64() was meant to protect the ++i that follows.
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
