On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:59:29AM +0200, Thilo Borgmann wrote:
> Am 21.04.15 um 19:35 schrieb Andreas Cadhalpun:
> > On 21.04.2015 08:14, Thilo Borgmann wrote:
> >> Am 20.04.15 um 23:20 schrieb Andreas Cadhalpun:
> >>> On 19.04.2015 22:20, Luca Barbato wrote:
> I'd check that `master` is alwa
Am 21.04.15 um 19:35 schrieb Andreas Cadhalpun:
> On 21.04.2015 08:14, Thilo Borgmann wrote:
>> Am 20.04.15 um 23:20 schrieb Andreas Cadhalpun:
>>> On 19.04.2015 22:20, Luca Barbato wrote:
I'd check that `master` is always between `raw_buffer` and the end of it.
>>>
>>> You mean something like
On 21.04.2015 08:14, Thilo Borgmann wrote:
> Am 20.04.15 um 23:20 schrieb Andreas Cadhalpun:
>> On 19.04.2015 22:20, Luca Barbato wrote:
>>> I'd check that `master` is always between `raw_buffer` and the end of it.
>>
>> You mean something like the attached patch?
>>
>>> (I'm not sure if `div_block
Am 20.04.15 um 23:20 schrieb Andreas Cadhalpun:
> On 19.04.2015 22:20, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 18/04/15 18:58, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>>> If begin is smaller than t, the subtraction 'begin -= t' wraps around,
>>> because begin is unsigned. The same applies for end < t.
>>>
>>> This causes segme
On 19.04.2015 22:20, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 18/04/15 18:58, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>> If begin is smaller than t, the subtraction 'begin -= t' wraps around,
>> because begin is unsigned. The same applies for end < t.
>>
>> This causes segmentation faults.
>
> Actually, the access to raw_buffer
On 18.04.2015 21:55, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 18/04/15 18:58, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>> If begin is smaller than t, the subtraction 'begin -= t' wraps around,
>> because begin is unsigned. The same applies for end < t.
>
> Why that variable is unsigned?
Probably because it should never be negat
