Author loewis
Recipients alexandre.vassalotti, christian.heimes, donmez, gregory.p.smith, gvanrossum, loewis, mark.dickinson, matejcik, nnorwitz, pitrou, vstinner
Date 2009-05-13.21:32:40
SpamBayes Score 2.75374e-08
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <4A0B3C75.3040104@v.loewis.de>
In-reply-to <1242248309.07.0.900383605185.issue1621@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
> 	size = Py_SIZE(a) * n;
> 
> The multiplication should be safe from overflow, and I don't get
> any warning at all either with this rewrite (using -O3 -Wall -Wextra -
> Wsigned-overflow=5) or from the original code, so there's nothing to 
> silence.

This is puzzling, isn't it? It *could* overflow, could it not?

>> I think there is a second solution: perform the multiplication
>> unsigned in the first place.
> 
> That would work too.  I find the above code clearer, though.

I agree in this case. In general, I'm not convinced that it
is always possible to rewrite the code in that way conveniently.
History
Date User Action Args
2009-05-13 21:32:42loewissetrecipients: + loewis, gvanrossum, nnorwitz, gregory.p.smith, mark.dickinson, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, alexandre.vassalotti, donmez, matejcik
2009-05-13 21:32:41loewislinkissue1621 messages
2009-05-13 21:32:40loewiscreate