[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #30423] Incorrect limit for array sizes?
From: |
Jaroslav Hajek |
Subject: |
[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #30423] Incorrect limit for array sizes? |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:08:39 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100506 SUSE/3.5.10-0.1.1 Firefox/3.5.10 |
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #30423 (project octave):
The fix is trivial (attached), but should it be fixed? I think I've done this
on purpose, though I failed to record it there :(
For instance, consider a sparse row vector of length n = 2147483647 columns
(disregarding the fact that sparse row vectors are a bad idea in practice).
The SparseRep holds boundaries for i-th row in c[i-1]<= j < c[i],
so c needs to be of length n+1. Overflow; bang, you're dead.
Maybe there are other cases where you want an internal buffer of size n+1
(for instance, for cumulative sums).
On the contrary, how does this matter if it's intmax or intmax-1?
(file #20970)
_______________________________________________________
Additional Item Attachment:
File name: max1.diff Size:0 KB
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?30423>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/