[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: documentation of integers, fixnums and bignums

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: documentation of integers, fixnums and bignums
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2018 08:40:35 +0300

> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2018 16:37:26 -0700
> >> When INDEX_TO_CODE_POINT returns a code point greater than
> >> most-positive-fixnum, which can happen (in theory, at least) on 32-bit
> >> platforms.
> > 
> > Can it, really?
> I don't know of any way it could happen. So what you're saying is that we 
> should 
> install something like the attached patch?

The log message you made in commit 3c7649c says:

    Don't rely on undefined behavior with signed left shift overflow.
    Don't assume unsigned int fits into fixnum, or that fixnum fits
    into unsigned int.  Don't require max_code to be a valid fixnum;
    that's not true for gb10830 4-byte on a 32-bit host.

And indeed, etc/charsets/gb108304.map clearly shows codepoints like
0x81308130, which will overflow the 32-bit most-positive-fixnum.
(These codepoints are just a concatenation of the 4 bytes of the GB
10830 encoding, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB_18030).

> Also, how about glyph-ids returned by font-variation-glyphs? Can they exceed 
> fixnum range? If not, font-variation-glyphs could see a similar speedup.

They are glyph IDs of some font.  Does anyone know what are the limits
for values of font glyph IDs?  I'm not an expert on fonts.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]