Craig DeForest <[email protected]> writes: > Cool, glad it worked! > > But the code isn't really unsafe under less vigorous optimizing > compilers -- the problem is that whoever wrote that (Tuomas?) used a > massive autogenerated collection of similar-but-slightly-different > structs to simulate dynamically allocated arrays, with a superclass > generic struct that is used to access most of them. The memory is > out-of-bounds for the type to which the struct is cast (the generic > pdl_trans), but the bounds are maintained with runtime variables.
Wait... what? I don't quite understand. The code here is fairly unambiguous. We have a struct pdl_trans object and we're trying to access data that's out of bounds. What we tell the compiler it's very clear, unless I'm missing something. Are you saying that the struct pdl_trans* we have here isn't actually pointing to a pdl_trans, but rather to something different that sorta looks like a pdl_trans, but has more elements? If so, we should be using the correct type so that we don't purposely lie to our compiler. I'm looking to see where the pdl_trans objects are getting allocated to get to the bottom of this. Do you know of the top of your head where this is done? _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
