[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: EMACS_INT cleanup
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: EMACS_INT cleanup |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:53:29 +0200 |
> From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:34:29 +0200
>
> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Lisp_Object
> > oblookup (Lisp_Object obarray, register const char *ptr, int size, int
> > size_byte)
> >
> > The last parameter there is an EMACS_INT. Should I change oblookup to
> > take EMACS_INT parameters, in case we want to intern a 2.1GB long
> > string?
>
> I mean, it sounds nonsensical, but 1) it makes it compile without any
> other warnings, and 2) if you've said (setq a (buffer-string)) on a big
> buffer and then happen to (intern a), you don't want a segfault, do you?
I see no harm in having both size and size_byte be EMACS_INT.
- EMACS_INT cleanup, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2010/09/23
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/09/23
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2010/09/23
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2010/09/23
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2010/09/23
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2010/09/23
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/09/23
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2010/09/23
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/09/23
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2010/09/23
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2010/09/23
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/09/23
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/09/23
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2010/09/23
- Re: EMACS_INT cleanup, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2010/09/23