We can also validate rect on construction and allow to create rects no bigger than QRect(*, *, MAX_INT, MAX_INT) rects?
2016-03-15 16:44 GMT+03:00 Poenitz Andre <[email protected]>: > > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 13:08:42 Bo Thorsen wrote: > > > Den 15-03-2016 kl. 14:07 skrev Marc Mutz: > > [...] > > > There is another option that doesn't mean a change of signature: Bound > > > the result. So if the real result is > INT_MAX, return INT_MAX. Same > for > > > INT_MIN. > > > > > > Yes, it's not the correct result, but I completely agree with you that > > > it's a theoretical problem. As long as it's documented in the width() I > > > really don't see the problem with this solution. > > > > I like the idea to change width() to return a bounded result to avoid UB > for > > old users, but we need a code path that returns the correct result for > new > > users without everyone of them going quint64(1) + r.right() - r.left() by > > themselves... > > You seem to claim that new users would need 64 bit QRects. > > This is unlikely. > > Bo's proposal addresses the problem and does not require API > changes. > > Andre' > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development >
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
