On 12/12/2016 03:49 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Part of the
problem appears to be that position-set merging, even with his latest proposed
changes, is O(N**2) where N is the pattern size
I'm confused. Which code are you talking about?
I was referring to code with his proposed patch installed
Paul Eggert wrote:
> Come to think of it, I suppose we should change xalloc_oversized to
> report an overflow if the resulting size would be greater than
> PTRDIFF_MAX. That should catch more potential problems in Gnulib and in
> Gnulib-using code.
> ...
> Here is an example of why arrays larger
On 12/14/2016 04:26 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
I suppose we should change xalloc_oversized to report an overflow if
the resulting size would be greater than PTRDIFF_MAX. That should
catch more potential problems in Gnulib and in Gnulib-using code.
Attached is a proposed patch to do that.
From 2d
On 12/14/2016 02:56 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Are you saying that -fsanitize=undefined or -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow
(or -ftrapv, when using an older GCC) can detect integer overflow for signed
integers, whereas no such option exists and won't exist for unsigned integers
(because there are
I somehow managed to install the wrong version. Sorry about that. Should
be fixed by the attached.
From 9c5c43cdd808a6f0e9cccf8b8ae8a73ea3526bc3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Eggert
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 15:11:28 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] dfa: fix glitches in previous commit
Sorry, I don't k
On 12/14/2016 04:56 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Possibly dumb questions, but:
>> over time I am
>> becoming more inclined to like the Emacs model, where object counts are
>> typically kept as nonnegative but signed integers. This approach makes C
>> code a bit more reliable, as compi
Hi Paul,
Possibly dumb questions, but:
> over time I am
> becoming more inclined to like the Emacs model, where object counts are
> typically kept as nonnegative but signed integers. This approach makes C
> code a bit more reliable, as compiling with -fsanitize=undefined is more
> likely to ca
On 12/13/2016 10:49 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
It took me a few minutes to convince myself that a coverity warning
was unwarranted, so I've added an assert that should suppress it.
I looked at it for a bit and found a way to justify some sort of warning
in that area, although the failure is extre
