Follow-up Comment #9, bug #63587 (project groff):
[comment #8 comment #8:]
> the possible existence of there being other ways to trip over
> what appears to be deficient integer overflow handling.
>
> I'm less concerned with complexity here than with there being an
> access hatch from the roff language to undefined behavior in C/C++.
Makes sense.
> Also I will admit that Heirloom returning a correct INT_MAX for
> \n[.t] in a diversion while we don't chaps me a little. ;-)
If it's any consolation, I think groff still wins in terms of overall correct
behavior, and certainly in terms of developer responsiveness to bugs. Not
that it's a competition ;-)
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63587>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
