from:"Vincent Lefèvre"

[valgrind] [Bug 497977] valgrind thinks that size_t is signed

2024-12-30 Thread Vincent Lefèvre

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497977 --- Comment #14 from Vincent Lefèvre --- (In reply to Paul Floyd from comment #13) > It's saying "(possibly negative)" and giving what would be the negative > value. This is still confusing, because with an unsigned size_t, a

[valgrind] [Bug 497977] valgrind thinks that size_t is signed

2024-12-30 Thread Vincent Lefèvre

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497977 --- Comment #12 from Vincent Lefèvre --- (In reply to Paul Floyd from comment #11) > In this case both signed and unsigned values are nonsense. I don't see that > as much of an improvement. The issue is not the value itself, but the fact th

[valgrind] [Bug 497977] valgrind thinks that size_t is signed

2024-12-29 Thread Vincent Lefèvre

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497977 --- Comment #10 from Vincent Lefèvre --- (In reply to Florian Krohm from comment #9) > I agree that this message could be improved. Clearly, the bit pattern being > passed as 'size' argument is being > interpreted as an unsigned

[valgrind] [Bug 497977] valgrind thinks that size_t is signed

2024-12-29 Thread Vincent Lefèvre

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497977 --- Comment #8 from Vincent Lefèvre --- You did not understand. Such huge values are precisely used to check the correct handling of allocation failures in a testsuite. Note that they may also occur in production, e.g. in arbitrary-precision software

[valgrind] [Bug 497977] valgrind thinks that size_t is signed

2024-12-29 Thread Vincent Lefèvre

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497977 --- Comment #6 from Vincent Lefèvre --- 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

[valgrind] [Bug 497977] valgrind thinks that size_t is signed

2024-12-28 Thread Vincent Lefèvre

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497977 --- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre --- The GCC output is helpful in the sense that it shows that the value is huge; the exact value really does not matter: malloc will fail to allocate the memory for any size of this order of magnitude. The "it

[valgrind] [Bug 497977] valgrind thinks that size_t is signed

2024-12-28 Thread Vincent Lefèvre

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497977 --- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre --- I can understand that valgrind outputs a message, but the cast to the signed type should just be internal to valgrind. The output message should show the actual value. -- You are receiving this mail because

[valgrind] [Bug 497977] New: valgrind thinks that size_t is signed

2024-12-28 Thread Vincent Lefèvre

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497977 Bug ID: 497977 Summary: valgrind thinks that size_t is signed Classification: Developer tools Product: valgrind Version: 3.19.0 Platform: Other OS: Linux Status: REPOR