Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
@b4n commented on this pull request.
> @@ -241,6 +241,33 @@ void tm_ctags_clear_ignore_symbols(void)
}
+static gboolean replace_str(gchar **where, const gchar *what, gsize what_len,
+ const gchar *replacement, gsize replacement_len)
+{
+ if (where && *where)
+ {
+ gchar *pos = strstr(*where, what);
+
+ if (pos)
+ {
+ gsize where_len = strlen(*where);
+ gchar *str = g_malloc(where_len + (replacement_len - what_len) + 1);
I don't see why they would? Admittedly the tests passed, but I can't see why using a larger unsigned would solve the underflow… unless maybe it subsequently overflows in final computation, putting sign back in the right direction?
even if that's so, it's a bit too scary even for me :)
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.