[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: |
Sun, 29 Aug 2021 20:36:16 +0200 |
Paul Eggert wrote:
> > IMO, it would be better to have code like this in base64_encode_alloc:
> >
> > if (inlen < 0)
> > /* This argument is invalid, since the API change from 2021-08-28. */
> > abort ();
>
> Another possibility would be to treat inlen < 0 the same as integer
> overflow. I could go either way.
Yes, either an abort() or an integer overflow return indicator would be better
than undefined behaviour, for something that was defined behaviour until last
week.
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, 2021/08/28
- 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 <=
- 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