On 11-10-18 13:56, Gert Doering wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:52:37PM +0200, Steffan Karger wrote: >>> I know that Steffan likes using size_t for "things that have a size" >>> but I find it a bit questionable here :-) >> >> So the underlying problem is that "further down" used int to store >> sizes, but since that just is the way it is and we shouldn't pull in >> refactoring the code base for each small change, I would say either make >> both 'int', or make both 'size_t', but without changing the types of >> struct frame itself. I of course prefer the latter ;-) > > Adding or substracting a size_t from frame->extra_frame (which is an int) > will quite likely cause the same warning again...
I don't think so, because at that level, you'll be adding/subtracting either "int + int" or "int + size_t", which are equally likely to cause overflows. Only that signed overflows are not only not what you want, but also undefined behaviour. But well, as I said, I'm fine with both in this case. It will effectively not change any logic anyway. -Steffan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openvpn-devel mailing list Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
