Ever seen an object larger than SIZE_MAX bytes? How about SIZE_MAX * SIZE_MAX bytes on x86-64?pic.twitter.com/AncfvROab0
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Supporting objects >PTRDIFF_MAX rather than ensuring they don't exist is a QoI bug even if not a conformance issue.
The - operator is not safe to use on pointers unless the implementation precludes objects > PTRDIFF_MAX.
The - operator is only not safe in C for arrays of chars larger than PTRDIFF_MAX.
The + operator is much more dangerous -- you can easily get OOB pointer. Why so much attention to -?
The + operator is only used when the integer operand is known to be a valid offset for the pointer operand; it's safe.
Not necessarily. Even if we limit ourselves to only natural cases there would be problems. E.g. end pointers.
It is kinda natural to write p < s + n in an implementation of memchr but it's wrong.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.