[Insight-developers] nrrd assumptions and signed overflow

[Williams, Norman K]

Well, I guess that means CLang agrees with me that the NRRD code is just
plain wrong.

I'd vote for a patch to NRRD in ITK that removes the code that
intentionally overflows.



On 11/28/11 9:27 AM, "Sean McBride" <sean at rogue-research.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:50:53 +0000, Williams, Norman K said:
>
>>I presume CLang is testing for known overflows at compile time.  Does
>>this
>>get flagged as a compile error?
>
>No, it's a check at runtime.  It's very nicely explained here (well worth
>the read):
>
><http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know.html>
>
>All the "ILLEGAL" type failures here:
>
><http://www.cdash.org/CDash/viewTest.php?onlyfailed&buildid=1768103>
>
>are due to these checks.
>
>--
>____________________________________________________________
>Sean McBride, B. Eng                 sean at rogue-research.com
>Rogue Research                        www.rogue-research.com
>Mac Software Developer              Montréal, Québec, Canada
>
>



________________________________
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it.  Thank you.
________________________________