This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

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 2.7537398e-08
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
> 	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.
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