Issue 7564010: Add missing bounds check in FixedArray::set for smis

Keyboard Shortcuts

	File
u :	up to issue
j / k :	jump to file after / before current file
J / K :	jump to next file with a comment after / before current file
	Side-by-side diff
i :	toggle intra-line diffs
e :	expand all comments
c :	collapse all comments
s :	toggle showing all comments
n / p :	next / previous diff chunk or comment
N / P :	next / previous comment
<Up> / <Down> :	next / previous line

	Issue
u :	up to list of issues
j / k :	jump to patch after / before current patch
o / <Enter> :	open current patch in side-by-side view
i :	open current patch in unified diff view

	Issue List
j / k :	jump to issue after / before current issue
o / <Enter> :	open current issue

Issue 7564010: Add missing bounds check in FixedArray::set for smis (Closed)

Created:
9 years, 4 months ago by danno

Modified:
9 years, 4 months ago

Reviewers:
Sven Panne, SkyLined

CC:
v8-dev

Base URL:
https://v8.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge

Visibility:
Public.

Description

Add missing bounds check in FixedArray::set for smis R=svenpanne@chromium.org BUG=none TEST=none Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=8820

Patch Set 1 #

Created: 9 years, 4 months ago

Download [raw] [tar.bz2]

		Unified diffs	Side-by-side diffs	Delta from patch set	Stats (+1 line, -0 lines)			Patch
	M	src/objects-inl.h	View		1 chunk	+1 line, -0 lines	0 comments	Download

Messages

Total messages: 6 (0 generated)

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages

SkyLined

On 2011/08/03 13:40:00, danno wrote: Tnx! Looking forward to hitting it :)

9 years, 4 months ago (2011-08-03 13:41:49 UTC) #2

SkyLined

Actually, why is this an ASSERT? Should it not be a CHECK, so that it ...

9 years, 4 months ago (2011-08-03 15:36:15 UTC) #4

danno

On 2011/08/03 15:36:15, SkyLined wrote: > Actually, why is this an ASSERT? Should it not ...

9 years, 4 months ago (2011-08-03 15:43:17 UTC) #5

SkyLined

9 years, 4 months ago (2011-08-03 16:54:20 UTC) #6

On 2011/08/03 15:43:17, danno wrote:
> On 2011/08/03 15:36:15, SkyLined wrote:
> > Actually, why is this an ASSERT? Should it not be a CHECK, so that it gets
> > compiled into non-debug builds?
> 
> It's important to not do the check in the set itself in release builds,
because
> in loops this call can be performance sensitive. The caller (C++ code in the
> runtime) needs to guarantee that it will not exceed the array bounds, and this
> is always the case unless there is a bug in the runtime code.
Fair enough, thanks for the info!

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages