Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes: > Given this, perhaps the proper approach should instead be to just check > the return value, and go from there? Should be a simple enough patch, > something like the attached.
> Tom, can you comment?
Testing against INT_MAX seems like a type pun, or something. Maybe use MaxAllocSize instead?
if (xfrmlen >= MaxAllocSize) return val;
Also, since as you note returning (size_t) -1 is not at all standard, it would be helpful to readers to note that that's what Windows does on failure and that's what you're testing for. In fact you could make a good case that the test should be just