On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 19:28, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Monday, 6 February 2023 11:37:07 PST Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On Monday, 6 February 2023 11:21:13 PST Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer [snip] > > No. It's a false positive. The value that GCC is reporting is also > > impossible: > > > > size_t nSpans = numBuckets >> SpanConstants::SpanShift; > > spans = new Span[nSpans]; > > > > numBuckets is a size_t, so shifting it right will shift 7 (SpanShift) zeroes > > in. That means the maximum value that nSpans could assume is 2^(64-7) - 1. > > > > If you multiply that value by sizeof(Span) == 144, that would overflow the > > size_t though. > > Actually, maxNumBuckets is wrong, allowing bucketsForCapacity to overflow. But > in practice this will only affect you after the QHash has grown to more than > half the virtual memory size (which can only happen on 32-bit systems today). > > Working on a fix right now. Will push soon.
Thanks! -- Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer https://perezmeyer.com.ar/ -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
