Stephane Rollandin reported this:
Christian Kellerman reported this:
Here is lldb debug report on OSX:
we have :
Hmm is that intended to be so large? or just -1?
it comes from
We are in the later case:
up the stack, we have:
in b3d.h, we have:
and what is a
So it's a bit more subtle than pointer stored into int.
I broke it in #448
What I'm very unsure of now, is if writing at negative offset is a good idea (buffer underflow?), or if this uncovers yet another bug at upper level...
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:57 PM Nicolas Cellier <[hidden email]>
> I broke it in #448
> The function signature was already BADLY inconsistent!
> But luckily, the erroneous 64 bits arguments did get copied into 32 bits
> dstY before my fix...
> I sort of broke the spell and the magic vanished ;)
> Brittle code = hazardous life
> What I'm very unsure of now, is if writing at negative offset is a good
> idea (buffer underflow?), or if this uncovers yet another bug at upper
> If I just correct function signature, the game seems to work though...
That's the right thing to do, no? Just fix the signature.
Question: where is the BitBlt plugin
We also have a few UB associated with those negative values
I do not think that it is the source of problem, but yet another potential problem in the future in case of aggressive C compiler optimization...
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|