[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #30423] Incorrect limit for array sizes?

[Jaroslav Hajek]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #30423 (project octave):

The fix is trivial (attached), but should it be fixed? I think I've done this
on purpose, though I failed to record it there :(

For instance, consider a sparse row vector of length n = 2147483647 columns
(disregarding the fact that sparse row vectors are a bad idea in practice).
The SparseRep holds boundaries for i-th row in c[i-1]<= j < c[i],
so c needs to be of length n+1. Overflow; bang, you're dead.

Maybe there are other cases where you want an internal buffer of size n+1
(for instance, for cumulative sums).

On the contrary, how does this matter if it's intmax or intmax-1?

(file #20970)
    _______________________________________________________

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: max1.diff                      Size:0 KB


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?30423>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/