Message217276
| Author | neologix |
|---|---|
| Recipients | josh.r, jtaylor, neologix, njs, pitrou, skrah, vstinner |
| Date | 2014-04-27.15:59:55 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <CAH_1eM0A+Yko4U4fr_P6i+t7uow+_Q+gmG36d++bCCy6YW=mKA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to | <1398613381.6.0.0251398335923.issue21233@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> __libc_calloc() starts with a check on integer overflow. Yes, see my previous message: """ AFAICT, the two arguments are purely historical (it was used when malloc() didn't guarantee suitable alignment, and has the advantage of performing overflow check when doing the multiplication, but in our code we always check for it anyway). """ |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2014-04-27 15:59:55 | neologix | set | recipients: + neologix, pitrou, vstinner, njs, skrah, jtaylor, josh.r |
| 2014-04-27 15:59:55 | neologix | link | issue21233 messages |
| 2014-04-27 15:59:55 | neologix | create | |