[gdal-dev] RFC-19 revised

[Tamas Szekeres]

+1

Best regards,

Tamas



2008/1/7, Even Rouault <even.rouault at mines-paris.org>:
> Hi all,
>
> After more feedback coming from discussions on IRC, I've decided to revise the
> terms of http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc19_safememalloc.
>
> The summary of changes is that I would only add 2 new functions - VSIMalloc2
> and VSIMalloc3 - which would have the same behaviour of the previously named
> CPLSafeMalloc2 and CPLSafeMalloc3. Their behaviour would be consistent with
> the behaviour of current VSIMalloc. (The 'safe' qualifier could have implied
> that other memory allocation functions are not safe to use, which is not the
> case).
>
> The proposed functions for detecting overflows when doing arithmetic
> operations (CPLSafeMul/CPLSafeSizetCastToInt), and the way of implementing
> them (templates vs not templates), don't make enough consensus and are
> retracted. There could be indeed a more general need for "safe" arithmetic,
> and not just restrict them to multiplication of size_t variables. The subject
> of security is far from being fully covered... ;-)
>
> So, I call for a new vote on the updated RFC.
>
> Best regards,
> Even
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>