Earlier I wrote: [...] :For db58a81, as far as I can see the only use we make of RExC_naughty :is here: : : if (RExC_naughty >= 10) /* Probably an expensive pattern. */ : :.. so infinity is probably 10 in this case. We should probably define it :that way, and change these checks to the simpler: : : if (RExC_naughty < VERY_NAUGHTY) : RExC_naughty += 2 + RExC_naughty / 2; : :.. with a compile-time assert somewhere that VERY_NAUGHTY < I32_MAX / 2 - 4, :else we'll still have subtler overflows from all the ++ and +=4 scattered :around. I've now pushed 99807a43 'protect RExC_naughty changes behind macros' for this, which also tries to add some explanation of how this is used. HugoThread Previous | Thread Next