On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 2:45 PM Jeffrey Walton <noloa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 5:26 PM Carlo Arenas <care...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 12:45 PM Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> > > ...
> > using idx_t instead of size_t should be fine (if only halves the max
> > size of the objects managed), but I am concerned that assuming
> > PCRE2_SIZE_MAX is always equivalent to SIZE_MAX (as done in patch 4)
> > might be risky (at least without a comment), and considering that is
> > part of the API anyway might be better if kept as PCRE2_SIZE_MAX IMHO.
>
> GNU Hurd may not have SIZE_MAX defined. The Hurd folks
> {sometimes|often} want developers to make a runtime call for the
> limit.don't have any GNU Hurd system to test on, but would assume that in that case PCRE2 failed to build as well and then this code will never be compiled. Either way my suggestion to use PCRE2_SIZE_MAX instead (which should work, except on ancient 10.00 or so) sounds even better, and then the fix could be made in PCRE2 for both. Carlo
