On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 02:09:27PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > We ask to write 41 bytes and make sure that the return value
> > is at least 41. This is the same "dangerous" pattern that
> > was fixed in the prior commit (wherein a negative return
> > value is promoted to unsigned), though
Hi,
Jeff King wrote:
> We ask to write 41 bytes and make sure that the return value
> is at least 41. This is the same "dangerous" pattern that
> was fixed in the prior commit (wherein a negative return
> value is promoted to unsigned), though it is not dangerous
> here because our "41" is a
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 02:02:32PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > Does read_in_full need a similar treatment?
>
> It might actually return fewer than the requested number of bytes, so it
> can't just use "< 0" in the same way (nor be adapted to return 0 on
> success). But I think it's still a bug
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:53:57AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Jeff King wrote:
>
> > We ask to write 41 bytes and make sure that the return value
> > is at least 41. This is the same "dangerous" pattern that
> > was fixed in the prior commit (wherein a negative return
> > value is promoted
Jeff King wrote:
> We ask to write 41 bytes and make sure that the return value
> is at least 41. This is the same "dangerous" pattern that
> was fixed in the prior commit (wherein a negative return
> value is promoted to unsigned), though it is not dangerous
> here because our "41" is a
5 matches
Mail list logo