Hi Alex, At 2024-03-12T23:22:32+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > That's still a problem on ILP64, ain't it? :)
Shouldn't we call that ILLLP64? > Not that I like such systems, but Paul Eggert reminded me of their > existence when I suggested a similar fix for a similar problem some > time ago. > > You'll need to just use a better API. I am reluctant to increase groff's build dependencies; I perceive its portability to geriatric Unix systems as advantageous in my quest to see the end of System V troff. > strtoi(3), provided by the BSDs, and by libbsd on non-BSD systems, is > a better one. It had a bug until earlier this year, when I fixed it, > so you may want to avoid it. Why is it that no matter how big our integers get, we never seem to get any better at range-checking with respect to them? > > You may see another problem here. We accept '1' as an argument, but > > then pass it to a function called `is_prime()`...which fails an > > assertion on that input. Whoops. > > Hmmm, yeah. So you could raise it to 3, and then also drop the >2 > test. As Cliff Clavin would say, it's a little-known fact that 2 is prime. If a user wants overflowing hash buckets, it's not my job to stop them. > Hmm, ok. Let's hope nobody adds a call to this function with a > different 'min'. indxbib mainly exists to redress performance problems that people stopped noticing about 30 years ago, thanks to Moore's Law. I feel a sense of responsibility to protect groff programs from insane user inputs. I cannot protect the code from insane programmers. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
