On 2017-11-14 19:41, Max Reitz wrote:
> @mem_size and @offset are both size_t, thus subtracting them from one
> another will just return a big size_t if mem_size < offset -- even more
> obvious here because the result is stored in another size_t.
>
> Checking that result to be positive is
On 2017-11-15 10:09, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Tue 14 Nov 2017 07:41:27 PM CET, Max Reitz wrote:
>> @mem_size and @offset are both size_t, thus subtracting them from one
>> another will just return a big size_t if mem_size < offset -- even more
>> obvious here because the result is stored in
On Tue 14 Nov 2017 07:41:27 PM CET, Max Reitz wrote:
> @mem_size and @offset are both size_t, thus subtracting them from one
> another will just return a big size_t if mem_size < offset -- even more
> obvious here because the result is stored in another size_t.
>
> Checking that result to be
On 11/14/2017 12:41 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> @mem_size and @offset are both size_t, thus subtracting them from one
> another will just return a big size_t if mem_size < offset -- even more
> obvious here because the result is stored in another size_t.
>
> Checking that result to be positive is
@mem_size and @offset are both size_t, thus subtracting them from one
another will just return a big size_t if mem_size < offset -- even more
obvious here because the result is stored in another size_t.
Checking that result to be positive is therefore not sufficient to
excluse the case that
