On 14/01/2019 11:10, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> Thanks, do you have a copyright assignment with the FSF?
No problem, and no I don't think so. I'd assumed these patches were trivial
enough to not need anything like that, but if so then what do I need to do?
> Rather than checking for overflow twice, I
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 01:20, Ben L wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> First time emailing gcc-patches, so I'm sorry if I get any of this wrong or if
> there's obvious errors repeated in my patches. AFAICT I should be sending each
> change individually rather than as one bulk patch, so I'm sorry about the spa
Jan 2019 22:57:08 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 10/10] libiberty: Correct an invalid assumption.
As a counter example: 888 * 10 = -3344831479658869200, which is
valid for 64 bit longs, and evidently divisible by 10.
Also safely check that adding the digit won't cause an overflow too.
No tes
