Re: I created a faster JSON parser

[Herman , Géza]

Christopher Wellons <wellons@nullprogram.com> writes:

> > It's been running for an hour, the tester didn't find any 
> > problems yet.
>
> Except for an overflow assigning huge floats to the dummy 
> Lisp_Object
> value — which is a problem with the test, not the parser — this
> stripped down version looks robust to me, too. Solid work! I 
> have no
> further feedback or commentary.

Cool!  Out of curiosity, how did you find the overflow problem? 
Did you just notice it, or did the fuzzer/sanitizer find it?

> I made a few tweaks to harden the test, which did not change the 
> results:

Thanks for the work! I think that we can say then that the new 
parser works OK, it's unlikely that it has any serious problem.

> > it incorrectly optimizes around setjmp in do_test()
>
> If a program modifies a variable after the first setjmp return 
> and
> then accesses it after the second setjmp return, it must be
> volatile-qualified.

Good to know, thanks for the info!