Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given this, perhaps the proper approach should instead be to just check
> the return value, and go from there? Should be a simple enough patch,
> something like the attached.

> Tom, can you comment?

Testing against INT_MAX seems like a type pun, or something.  Maybe use
MaxAllocSize instead?

        if (xfrmlen >= MaxAllocSize)
                return val;

Also, since as you note returning (size_t) -1 is not at all standard,
it would be helpful to readers to note that that's what Windows does
on failure and that's what you're testing for.  In fact you could
make a good case that the test should be just

        if (xfrmlen == (size_t) -1)
                return val;

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to