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, I'll
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),
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
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
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 already, if
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
that stuff is
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
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 behavior...
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. whether
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 upstream
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_MIN
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
