Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
This project is mirrored from https://git.alchemyviewer.org/alchemy/alchemy-next.git. Pull mirroring failed .
Repository mirroring has been paused due to too many failed attempts. It can be resumed by a project maintainer or owner.
  1. Feb 08, 2023
  2. Feb 02, 2023
  3. Jan 27, 2023
  4. Jan 11, 2023
  5. Jan 10, 2023
  6. Jan 07, 2023
  7. Jan 06, 2023
  8. Jan 05, 2023
  9. Jan 04, 2023
    • Andrey Kleshchev's avatar
    • Nat Goodspeed's avatar
      DRTVWR-575: Fix possible bad indexing in LLSD::operator[](size_t). · 99c040ea
      Nat Goodspeed authored
      One could argue that passing a negative index to an LLSD array should do
      something other than shrug and reference element [0], but as that's legacy
      behavior, it seems all too likely that the viewer sometimes relies on it.
      
      This specific problem arises if the index passed to operator[]() is negative
      -- either with the previous Integer parameter or with size_t (which of course
      reinterprets the negative index as hugely positive). The non-const
      ImplArray::ref() overload checks parameter 'i' and, if it appears negative,
      sets internal 'index' to 0.
      
      But in the next stanza, if (index >= existing size()), it calls resize() to
      scale the internal array up to one more than the requested index. The trouble
      is that it passed resize(i + 1), not the adjusted resize(index + 1).
      
      With a requested index of exactly -1, that would pass resize(0), which would
      result in the ensuing array[0] reference being invalid.
      
      With a requested index less than -1, that would pass resize(hugely positive)
      -- since, whether operator[]() accepts signed LLSD::Integer or size_t,
      resize() accepts std::vector::size_type. Given that the footprint of an LLSD
      array element is at least a pointer, the number of bytes required for
      resize(hugely positive) is likely to exceed available heap storage.
      
      Passing the adjusted resize(index + 1) should defend against that case.
      99c040ea
    • Nat Goodspeed's avatar
      DRTVWR-575: Use llsdutil.h functions for LLFloaterLandHoldings LLSD · 4093d5b1
      Nat Goodspeed authored
      LLFloaterLandHoldings::postBuild() was constructing an LLSD structure by
      assigning each map entry and array element one at a time. Chorazinallen
      identified a crash bug possibly caused by destroying that LLSD structure.
      Diagnostically try building it using nested llsd::map() and llsd::array()
      calls instead to see if that improves matters.
      4093d5b1
    • Nat Goodspeed's avatar
      DRTVWR-575: Fix bug in macOS micro_sleep(). · aa112ef1
      Nat Goodspeed authored
      The compiler was deducing an unsigned type for the difference (U64 desired
      microseconds - half KERNEL_SLEEP_INTERVAL_US). When the desired sleep was less
      than that constant, the difference went hugely positive, resulting in a very
      long snooze.
      
      Amusingly, forcing that U64 result into an S32 num_sleep_intervals worked only
      *because* of integer truncation: the high-order bits were discarded, resulting
      in a negative result as intended.
      
      Ensuring that both integer operands are signed at the outset, though, produces
      a more formally correct result.
      aa112ef1
  10. Jan 03, 2023
    • Nat Goodspeed's avatar
      DRTVWR-575: Replace some LLSDArray() usage with llsd::array(). · bb718155
      Nat Goodspeed authored
      It seems newer compilers have a different interpretation of exactly when to
      engage LLSDArray's copy constructor. In particular, this assignment:
      
      some_LLSD_map[key] = LLSDArray(...)(...)...;
      
      used to convert the LLSDArray object directly to LLSD; now it first calls the
      custom copy constructor, which embeds the intended array within an outer array
      before assigning it into the containing map.
      
      The newer llsd::array() function avoids that problem because what it returns
      is already an LLSD object.
      
      Taking inventory of LLSDArray assignments of that form turned up a number of
      workarounds like LLSD(LLSDArray(...)). Replacing those with llsd::array() is
      both simpler and more readable.
      
      Tip of the hat to Chorazinallen for surfacing this issue!
      bb718155
  11. Dec 19, 2022
  12. Dec 16, 2022
  13. Dec 12, 2022
  14. Dec 06, 2022
  15. Dec 05, 2022
  16. Dec 02, 2022
  17. Nov 30, 2022
  18. Nov 28, 2022
  19. Nov 22, 2022
  20. Nov 21, 2022
  21. Nov 18, 2022
Loading