https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497977
--- Comment #6 from Vincent Lefèvre <vincent-...@vinc17.net> --- The point is that the current message is misleading. It gives the impression that size_t is signed, while it is actually unsigned. At least it should not give incorrect information to a user who deliberately provides a huge value to malloc(). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
