why don't you fix it the way you want instead of arguing endlessly? I
gave all info to explain the reasoning behind that code, if it is
wrong, and that's totally possible, then fix it and let move on :)

Cheers,

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote:
> On 02/15/2011 03:31 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Dmitry Stogov<dmi...@zend.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know all the logic but it looks very strange
>>>
>>> 2147483648 == 0x80000000 != 0x7fffffff == 2147483647
>>>
>>> so byte_count_signed may be 0x80000000 == -1
>>
>> negative value are checked before. Btw, byte_count_signed  is a 64bit
>> signed integer, for this reason :)
>
> Lets byte_count_signed = 0x0000000080000000
>
> it's not less than zero and not greater than 2147483648.
> So the following condition is false.
>
> if (byte_count_signed < 0 || (byte_count_signed > 2147483648)) {
>
> Then you convert it to size_t.
>
> byte_count = (size_t)byte_count_signed;
>
> In case size_t is defined as signed int32 you will get byte_count = -1.


-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org

--
PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to