Bug#572923: signed integer overflow, maybe?

2010-05-22 Thread Iustin Pop
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 09:24:47PM +0200, sean finney wrote: > hiya, Hi there, > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 09:14:16PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote: > > Since I honestly don't know that much here, I think it would be best that > > you > > forward this to upstream, to get it integrated. In the meantime,

Bug#572923: signed integer overflow, maybe?

2010-04-15 Thread sean finney
hiya, On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 09:14:16PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote: > Since I honestly don't know that much here, I think it would be best that you > forward this to upstream, to get it integrated. In the meantime, I'll upload a > patched version next week with your diff. i sent an email to the ups

Bug#572923: signed integer overflow, maybe?

2010-04-15 Thread Iustin Pop
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 07:34:05PM +0200, sean finney wrote: > On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 09:47:36PM +0200, sean finney wrote: > > fixing both of these doesn't fix the problem, though the protoc program > > does get a tiny bit further before abort()ing. > > also, ConsumeSignedInteger (text_format.cc)

Bug#572923: signed integer overflow, maybe?

2010-04-05 Thread sean finney
On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 09:47:36PM +0200, sean finney wrote: > fixing both of these doesn't fix the problem, though the protoc program > does get a tiny bit further before abort()ing. also, ConsumeSignedInteger (text_format.cc), usage of enum WireType, (wire_format_lite.h), FastUInt32ToBufferLeft

Bug#572923: signed integer overflow, maybe?

2010-04-04 Thread sean finney
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 09:22:25PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > Honestly, since it tends to look like gcc bug, the thing I care most is > to workaround this issue *somehow*. If the simplest way is to require > gcc 4.3, or a different version of gcc, then… i took another dive in the debugger this aft

Bug#572923: signed integer overflow, maybe?

2010-03-15 Thread Iustin Pop
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:17:14PM +0100, sean finney wrote: > On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 11:07:13AM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > > So again, sorry if I'm talking stupid things. But here the compiler does > > exactly what you required it to do. 0x8000 as a positive constant > > doesn't > > work alr

Bug#572923: signed integer overflow, maybe?

2010-03-13 Thread Iustin Pop
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 11:07:13AM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:33:41PM +0100, sean finney wrote: > > i'm not saying it *isn't* a compiler error, but inserting a few printfs and > > the problem disappearing is also pretty common in other situations of > > "undefined behavio

Bug#572923: signed integer overflow, maybe?

2010-03-13 Thread sean finney
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 11:07:13AM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > So again, sorry if I'm talking stupid things. But here the compiler does > exactly what you required it to do. 0x8000 as a positive constant doesn't > work already, if you for example try to print it it's stored as a negative 0x8000

Bug#572923: signed integer overflow, maybe?

2010-03-13 Thread Iustin Pop
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:33:41PM +0100, sean finney wrote: > hi, > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:47:50PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > > > (without the negation). adding a negation operator to this is what was > > > raising my eyebrows. it could be that as long as everything is a constant > > > th

Bug#572923: signed integer overflow, maybe?

2010-03-12 Thread sean finney
hi, On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:47:50PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > > (without the negation). adding a negation operator to this is what was > > raising my eyebrows. it could be that as long as everything is a constant > > that stuff is okay, but once you negate a non-constant value holding INT_MI

Bug#572923: signed integer overflow, maybe?

2010-03-12 Thread Iustin Pop
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:22:31PM +0100, sean finney wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 11:38:23PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > > actually, from /usr/lib/limits.h, -0x8000 is indeed the minimum > > value for signed int32. a brief look at the tests failing show that this > > is exactly what upstrea

Bug#572923: signed integer overflow, maybe?

2010-03-12 Thread sean finney
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 11:38:23PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: > actually, from /usr/lib/limits.h, -0x8000 is indeed the minimum > value for signed int32. a brief look at the tests failing show that this > is exactly what upstream tries to test, the minimum and maximum valid > signed values. whet

Bug#572923: signed integer overflow, maybe?

2010-03-09 Thread Iustin Pop
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 06:47:46PM +0100, sean finney wrote: > hey folks, > > just to throw something out there, the last time i ran into a bug like > this was a few weeks back with php, also with gcc 4.4 and also on arm. > turns out it was a case of signed integer overflow, which has undefined >

Bug#572923: signed integer overflow, maybe?

2010-03-08 Thread sean finney
hey folks, just to throw something out there, the last time i ran into a bug like this was a few weeks back with php, also with gcc 4.4 and also on arm. turns out it was a case of signed integer overflow, which has undefined consequences in runtime code. looking through the code i see comments th