On 11/21/14, 1:32 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/21/14 6:17 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 11/21/14, 5:45 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/21/2014 12:10 AM, bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
All you're doing is trading 0 crossing for 0x7FFFFFFF crossing
issues, and
pretending the problems have gone away.
I'm not pretending anything. I am asking in practical programming what
of the
two solutions leads to leas problems/bugs. So far I've seen the
unsigned
solution and I've seen it's highly bug-prone.
I'm suggesting that having a bug and detecting the bug are two different
things. The 0-crossing bug is easier to detect, but that doesn't mean
that shifting the problem to 0x7FFFFFFF crossing bugs is making the bug
count less.
BTW, granted the 0x7FFFFFFF problems exhibit the bugs less often, but
paradoxically this can make the bug worse, because then it only gets
found
much, much later in supposedly tested & robust code.
Is this true? Do you have some examples of buggy code?
http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2006/06/extra-extra-read-all-about-it-nearly.html
"This bug can manifest itself for arrays whose length (in elements) is
2^30 or greater (roughly a billion elements)"
How often does that happen in practice?
Every time you read a DVD image :o). I should say that in my doctoral
work it was often the case I'd have very large arrays.
Oh, sorry, I totally forgot that when you open a DVD with VLC it reads
the whole thing to memory.
</sarcasm>
