From: Rasmus Villemoes <r...@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
The expression info->free+size is technically undefined behaviour in
exactly the case we want to test for. Moreover, the compiler is likely
to translate the expression to
(unsigned long)info->free + size > (unsigned long)info->end
where there's at least a theoretical chance that the LHS could wrap
around 0, giving a false negative.
This might as well be written using pointer subtraction avoiding these
issues.
Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <r...@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com>
---
shallow.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/shallow.c b/shallow.c
index 75e1702..719f699 100644
--- a/shallow.c
+++ b/shallow.c
@@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ static uint32_t *paint_alloc(struct paint_info *info)
unsigned nr = (info->nr_bits + 31) / 32;
unsigned size = nr * sizeof(uint32_t);
void *p;
- if (!info->pool_count || info->free + size > info->end) {
+ if (!info->pool_count || size > info->end - info->free) {
if (size > POOL_SIZE)
die("BUG: pool size too small for %d in paint_alloc()",
size);
--
2.8.2.524.g6ff3d78
