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
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):
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
