Antti Haapala added the comment:
if (len == PY_SSIZE_T_MAX) is necessary for the case that the iterable is
already PY_SSIZE_T_MAX items. However it could be moved inside the *other* if
because if (len == PY_SSIZE_T_MAX) should also fail the overflow check.
However, I believe it is theoretical at most with stuff that Python supports
that it would even be possible to allocate an array of PY_SSIZE_T_MAX
*pointers*. The reason is that the maximum size of object can be only that of
`size_t`, and Py_ssize_t should be a signed type of that size; and it would
thus be possible only to allocate an array of PY_SSIZE_T_MAX pointers only if
they're 16 bits wide.
In any case, this would be another place where my proposed macro
"SUM_OVERFLOWS_PY_SSIZE_T" or something would be in order to make it read
if (SUM_OVERFLOWS_PY_SSIZE_T(len, (len >> 1) + 1)
which would make it easier to spot mistakes in the sign preceding 1.
----------
nosy: +ztane
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue27507>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
