On 02.03.21 08:48, Norbert Manthey wrote:
On 3/2/21 6:15 AM, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 26.02.21 16:36, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:41, Norbert Manthey wrote:
The read value could be larger than a signed 32bit integer. As -1 is
used as error value, we should not rely on using the full 32
On 3/2/21 6:15 AM, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 26.02.21 16:36, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 26/02/2021 14:41, Norbert Manthey wrote:
>>> The read value could be larger than a signed 32bit integer. As -1 is
>>> used as error value, we should not rely on using the full 32 bits.
>>> Hence, when reading the
On 26.02.21 16:36, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:41, Norbert Manthey wrote:
The read value could be larger than a signed 32bit integer. As -1 is
used as error value, we should not rely on using the full 32 bits.
Hence, when reading the port number, we should make sure we only return
vali
On 26/02/2021 14:41, Norbert Manthey wrote:
> The read value could be larger than a signed 32bit integer. As -1 is
> used as error value, we should not rely on using the full 32 bits.
> Hence, when reading the port number, we should make sure we only return
> valid values.
>
> This change sanity ch
The read value could be larger than a signed 32bit integer. As -1 is
used as error value, we should not rely on using the full 32 bits.
Hence, when reading the port number, we should make sure we only return
valid values.
This change sanity checks the input.
The issue is that the value for the por
