[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Aug 2021 16:12:09 +0200 |
> 2) The continuous integration reported a test failure (both with GCC and
> clang):
>
> test-base64.c:131: assertion 'len == 0' failed
> FAIL test-base64 (exit status: 134)
>
> But, strangely, I can't reproduce it locally. (Maybe it depends on the
> glibc
> version?)
Or maybe the cause is the line
assume (0 <= inlen);
At the entry point of a public function, it is better to use 'assert' than
'assume', IMO. 'assume' means "feel free to crash or press the red button
if there is an invalid argument".
Bruno
- [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Paul Eggert, 2021/08/27
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Bruno Haible, 2021/08/28
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Paul Eggert, 2021/08/29
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Bruno Haible, 2021/08/29
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Paul Eggert, 2021/08/29
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Bruno Haible, 2021/08/29
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Paul Eggert, 2021/08/29
Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Paul Eggert, 2021/08/29
Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Simon Josefsson, 2021/08/29