On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:45 AM, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>>> * The description of the DMGL_RECURSE_LIMIT option in demangle.h has
>>> been enhanced to add a note that if the option is not used, then
>>> bug reports about stack overflows in the demangler will be rejected.
>>
>>
Hi Richard,
>> * The description of the DMGL_RECURSE_LIMIT option in demangle.h has
>> been enhanced to add a note that if the option is not used, then
>> bug reports about stack overflows in the demangler will be rejected.
>
> Shouldn't we make it fool-proof by instead introducing a
>
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 6:41 PM Nick Clifton wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> >> I think it would be fine to have a large fixed limit plus a flag to
> >> disable the limit.
>
> Great - in which case please may I present version 3 of the patch. In
> this version:
>
> * The cplus_demangle_set_recursion_li
On 11/30/2018 05:41 PM, Nick Clifton wrote:
> @@ -4693,10 +4694,21 @@
> demangle_nested_args (struct work_stuff *work, const char **mangled,
>string *declp)
> {
> + static unsigned long recursion_level = 0;
>string* saved_previous_argument;
>int result;
>int s
Hi!
Just spelling nitpicking.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 05:41:35PM +, Nick Clifton wrote:
> + order to dmangle truely complicated names, but it also leaves the tools
truly? Multiple times.
> +The @option{-r} option is a snyonym for the
synonym? Multiple times.
Jakub
Hi Guys,
>> I think it would be fine to have a large fixed limit plus a flag to
>> disable the limit.
Great - in which case please may I present version 3 of the patch. In
this version:
* The cplus_demangle_set_recursion_limit() function has been removed
and instead a new constant - DEMA
