[PATCH libXi 1/3] Fix potential corruption in mask_len handling

[Alan Coopersmith]

On 05/28/13 10:16 AM, walter harms wrote:
>
>
> Am 28.05.2013 17:55, schrieb Alan Coopersmith:
>> On 05/28/13 12:22 AM, walter harms wrote:
>>> Is the INT_MAX needed here ? running X on 16bit machines seems very odd
>>> (is that possible ?)
>>
>> 16-bits would be SHORT_MAX.  INT_MAX is 32-bits on all platforms X
>> currently
>> supports.
>>
>
> This was not my point.  0xffffff is less then INT_MAX. so this condition
> will apply before INT_MAX any time.

Ah, I misunderstood - I see what you're asking now.   With the tighter
condition added, I suppose the INT_MAX check is redundant (and may be
optimized out if the compiler is smart enough).

-- 
	-Alan Coopersmith-              alan.coopersmith at oracle.com
	 Oracle Solaris Engineering - http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc