You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The buf_append function will check if the current buf size needs
additional memory to append the new element(s).
n_alloc seems for how many ELEMENTS after append the new element(s),
so it is just a count number, and do not need to multiply with the
element size.
File: buf.c: http://sources.debian.net/src/flex/2.5.39-8/buf.c/#L245
241 /* May need to alloc more. /
242 if (n_elem + buf->nelts > buf->nmax) {
243
244 / exact amount needed... /
245 n_alloc = (n_elem + buf->nelts) * buf->elt_size;
246
247 / ...plus some extra */
248 if (((n_alloc * buf->elt_size) % 512) != 0
249 && buf->elt_size < 512)
250 n_alloc +=
251 (512 -
252 ((n_alloc * buf->elt_size) % 512)) /
253 buf->elt_size;
Check line 245, n_alloc should direct equals n_elem + buf->nelts, the
additional multiply with buf->elt_size should be a mistake, because in
line 248 and below, when checking the 512 boundaries, the n_alloc will
multiply with the buf->elt_size.
manoj
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
This was reported by a Debian user in Bug 761250
The buf_append function will check if the current buf size needs
additional memory to append the new element(s).
n_alloc seems for how many ELEMENTS after append the new element(s),
so it is just a count number, and do not need to multiply with the
element size.
File: buf.c: http://sources.debian.net/src/flex/2.5.39-8/buf.c/#L245
241 /* May need to alloc more. /
242 if (n_elem + buf->nelts > buf->nmax) {
243
244 / exact amount needed... /
245 n_alloc = (n_elem + buf->nelts) * buf->elt_size;
246
247 / ...plus some extra */
248 if (((n_alloc * buf->elt_size) % 512) != 0
249 && buf->elt_size < 512)
250 n_alloc +=
251 (512 -
252 ((n_alloc * buf->elt_size) % 512)) /
253 buf->elt_size;
Check line 245, n_alloc should direct equals n_elem + buf->nelts, the
additional multiply with buf->elt_size should be a mistake, because in
line 248 and below, when checking the 512 boundaries, the n_alloc will
multiply with the buf->elt_size.
manoj
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: