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,
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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
14 matches
Mail list logo