> in fact, it works with any compiler by necessity, as the assignment to char
> variables MUST truncate the result.
>
> the masking in line 12 is necessary, because there is no assignment.
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46073295/implicit-type-promotion-rules
> explains the deeper problem.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 05:52:58AM -0400, Michael Grant via isync-devel
wrote:
I realize they are uchar which means 8 bits and maybe this works fine
in gcc,
in fact, it works with any compiler by necessity, as the assignment to
char variables MUST truncate the result.
the masking in line 12
> Or maybe even use % 255 instead of a bitmask. I did not test this which is
> why this isn't a patch.
Oops, it would have to be %256.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
isync-devel mailing list
isync-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lis
I was looking at the arc4_getbyte() utility function the other day and
I noticed something that struck me as dangerous.
1 uchar
2 arc4_getbyte( void )
3 {
4uchar si, sj;
5
6rs.i++;
7si = rs.s[rs.i];
8rs.j += si;
9sj = rs.s[rs.j];
10 rs.s[rs.i] = sj;
11 rs.s[rs.j] = si
