This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [Patch] Another fix for cycle detection
> I've already seen it overflow 8 bit signed, seems silly to flip to an
> unsigned which doesn't give us that much headroom. But if that's what
> you'd prefer, I'll do it.
If it has exceeded 127 in real-world cases, then going to 65535 seems
reasonable. But any real-world case having exceeded the limit indicates
that explicit overflow detection is warranted.
> In case it's not obvious, this patch is pointless without last week's
> fix to cycle detection:
That's a sufficiently more complex and subtle change that it merits more
careful review than this one needed, and I haven't looked at it in detail.