On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 08:41:28 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> In [JDK-8302671](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302671) I fixed a
>> memmove decay bug by rewriting a sizeof on an array to an explicit size of
>> 256, but this is a bit of a band aid fix. It's come to my attention that in
>> C++,
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 08:41:28 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> In [JDK-8302671](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302671) I fixed a
>> memmove decay bug by rewriting a sizeof on an array to an explicit size of
>> 256, but this is a bit of a band aid fix. It's come to my attention that in
>> C++,
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:28:21 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> Okay.
>
> (Please don't go now and change all occurrences of `foo(pointer, size)` to
> something like `foo( [&] [size] )` :-) I dislike the increased cognitive load
> of this form, and prefer the classic pointer+size combo )
Even if I w
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 08:41:28 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> In [JDK-8302671](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302671) I fixed a
>> memmove decay bug by rewriting a sizeof on an array to an explicit size of
>> 256, but this is a bit of a band aid fix. It's come to my attention that in
>> C++,
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 08:41:28 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> In [JDK-8302671](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302671) I fixed a
>> memmove decay bug by rewriting a sizeof on an array to an explicit size of
>> 256, but this is a bit of a band aid fix. It's come to my attention that in
>> C++,
> In [JDK-8302671](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8302671) I fixed a
> memmove decay bug by rewriting a sizeof on an array to an explicit size of
> 256, but this is a bit of a band aid fix. It's come to my attention that in
> C++, one can pass an array by reference, which causes sizeof to w
