Hi,
* Phil Race [2016-01-21 17:55]:
> On 01/21/2016 01:50 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> >That said, do you think some sort of add-and-check-for-overflow test
> >would be suitable here? I can take a shot at implementing it, if you
> >like.
>
> Sure ! (to the code change option).
The following webrev
- Original Message -
> Hi,
snip...
>
> > Arguably the test could be removed but I would prefer to leave it in
> > and change the code it so it is actually tested.
> >
> > -fno-strict-overflow is just too compiler-specific and too far removed
> > from the code to be something I would want
On 01/21/2016 01:50 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
Hi,
* Phil Race [2016-01-21 14:15]:
I don't think this is a problem in practice as we also have this test ..
if (currGlyph < 0 || currGlyph >= glyphStorage.getGlyphCount()) {
But the compiler won't optimize this one away completely, will it? Both
Hi,
* Phil Race [2016-01-21 14:15]:
> I don't think this is a problem in practice as we also have this test ..
> > if (currGlyph < 0 || currGlyph >= glyphStorage.getGlyphCount()) {
But the compiler won't optimize this one away completely, will it? Both
parts of this check can be true or false. T
I don't think this is a problem in practice as we also have this test ..
> if (currGlyph < 0 || currGlyph >= glyphStorage.getGlyphCount()) {
Arguably the test could be removed but I would prefer to leave it in
and change the code it so it is actually tested.
-fno-strict-overflow is just too comp
Hi,
With a recent change to layout code in OpenJDK [1], I have started to get new
build warnings in layout code when building with gcc (5.3.1) on linux:
> /home/omajid/devel/jdk8u-jdk8u/jdk/src/share/native/sun/font/layout/IndicRearrangementProcessor.cpp:
> In member function ‘void IndicRearrang
