> On 2007-04-06 16:12 PDT, Lawrence Crowl writes:
Lawrence> Asking programmers to write extra code for rare
Lawrence> events, has not been very successful.
Well put Lawrence, I agree; I didn't expect strong opposition.
I doubt we'd find much code in the wild that checks for integer
o
> On 2007-04-06 15:35 PDT, J C Pizarro writes:
J> A possible workaround could be it but it's vulnerable if
J> it's defined with -DNDEBUG :
J> int * allocate_int(size_t n) {
J> // it's another integer overflow, a positive can
J> // become to a negative.
Hi all, apologies if this has been discussed before, but I
couldn't find anything about this issue in gcc mailing list
archives.
Use of operator new (et al) appears to have an integer overflow;
this function:
int * allocate_int(size_t n)
{
return new int[n];
}
with gcc-
