On 4/24/25 00:18, Michael Chirico wrote:
In that case it seems like just erroring instead of returning invalid
pointers is a much friendlier option. Why give developers an unpinned
grenade to carry around?
That would be too strict at this point. There is too much code around
depending on tha
In that case it seems like just erroring instead of returning invalid
pointers is a much friendlier option. Why give developers an unpinned
grenade to carry around?
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 1:38 PM Tomas Kalibera wrote:
>
> On 4/23/25 19:03, Michael Chirico wrote:
> > h/t Tim Taylor for pointing o
h/t Tim Taylor for pointing out my blindspot :)
We have Memcpy() in API already [1], which wraps a 0-aware R_chk_memcpy() [2].
We don't quite have Memset() in API, though; instead we have Memzero()
[3] for R_chk_memset(s, 0, n) which is 0-aware memset() [4].
[1]
https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn
>From R 4.5.0 [1], all builds of R discourage use of INTEGER() [and
friends REAL(), ... and *_RO() equivalents] on length-0 SEXP [2].
Before R 4.5.0, this was the behavior under --enable-strict-barrier.
That means the following can segfault under strict builds (e.g.
-fsanitize=alignment and -O0):
