incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Travis Vitek" <>
Subject RE: [jira] Commented: (STDCXX-761) [HP aCC 6.16] Out of bound access in new.cpp
Date Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:02:47 GMT

>Martin Sebor wrote:
>Eric Lemings wrote:
>> Travis,
>> If you could, give the following patch a whirl (or quick review
>> at least).
>Is there an easier way to silence the warning than by adding
>all these loops? E.g., by assigning the address of the first
>member to a local pointer? (Or is the compiler too smart for

That is exactly what the previous code did...

    size_t*       diffs    = diff.new_calls_;
    const size_t* st0_args = st0->new_calls_;
    const size_t* st1_args = st1->new_calls_;

The compiler complains because the member new_calls_ is an array of
length 2, but we iterate over 16 elements. Provided that there is no
padding between each of the array fields, this would work and we'd just
have to disable the warning.

I don't really like the macro, probably because it uses local variables
without taking them as parameters. Another option would be to use offset
pointer to member and a nested loop.

    typedef size_t (rwt_free_store::* checkpoint_field)[2];
    static const checkpoint_field fields [] =

    static rwt_free_store diff;

    bool diff_0 = true;

    for (size_t f = 0; f < sizeof (fields) / sizeof (*fields); ++f)
        size_t*       diffs    = (diff.*fields [f]);
        const size_t* st0_args = (st1->*fields [f]);
        const size_t* st1_args = (st0->*fields [f]);

        for (size_t i = 0; i < 2; ++i)
          diffs [i] = st1_args [i] - st0_args [i];
          if (diffs [i])
            diff_0 = false;

>Also, there is no need to use the _RWSTD_SIZE_T macro in .cpp
>files. The macro is useful in library and test suite headers
>to reduce namespace pollution (so we don't have to #include

I was going to mention that.

>Last thing: the code formatting convention calls for a space
>before each open parenthesis. It might take some getting used
>to but once you do, you'll never go back -- just ask Travis ;-)

Uh, yeah.


View raw message