Hi Gary,
I will be your submitter for this fix.
I don't think it's worth adding checks for array length being non-negative.
We can add tests to the existing test case
jdk/test/java/io/readBytes/ReadBytesBounds.java
I am providing a patch which has a revised patch and test.
Please forgive me fo
Gary Benson wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> There are some indentation SNAFUs here. Maybe due to tab width set
>> to 4?
>
> That's Martin's patch, which got inlined in the reply. My patch is
> the attachment.
Ahh, the evils of top-posting. Just Say No... :-)
Andrew.
Andrew Haley wrote:
> There are some indentation SNAFUs here. Maybe due to tab width set
> to 4?
That's Martin's patch, which got inlined in the reply. My patch is
the attachment.
Cheers,
Gary
--
http://gbenson.net/
Alan Bateman wrote:
> I checked the pre-OpenJDK history and this bounds check has been so
> since 1.2 (10+ years old). It's kinda surprising this hasn't been
> noticed with other ports. Did you run into this with an existing
> test (JCK or regression/unit)? Ideally we should have more tests to
> ca
Gary Benson wrote:
Hi Martin,
I like your method of avoiding the overflow, it's a nice idea.
I agree, and also better matches the method specification.
I've attached an updated version of my original patch, with that,
and with an expanded comment too, to make sure the fix doesn't
get rever
Gary Benson wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I like your method of avoiding the overflow, it's a nice idea.
> I've attached an updated version of my original patch, with that,
> and with an expanded comment too, to make sure the fix doesn't
> get reverted later on in the interests of readability or whateve
Hi Martin,
I like your method of avoiding the overflow, it's a nice idea.
I've attached an updated version of my original patch, with that,
and with an expanded comment too, to make sure the fix doesn't
get reverted later on in the interests of readability or whatever.
Can I ask that you file a s
