search for: r_chk_memset

...lows it to power through, but it failed at the same point. Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. This may be unrelated, but as I was monitoring the compilation, I saw an warning which I haven't seen before in the 20 or so years I've been building R on Windows: In function 'R_chk_memset', inlined from 'do_aperm' at ../main/array.c:1754:5: ../main/memory.c:3578:16: warning: 'memset' specified bound between 18446744056529682432 and 18446744073709551608 exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Wstringop-overflow=] 3578 | return n ? memset(s, c, n...

...Thanks Tomas > > Thank you again! > >>> This may be unrelated, but as I was monitoring the compilation, I saw >>> an warning which I haven't seen before in the 20 or so years I've been >>> building R on Windows: >>> >>> In function 'R_chk_memset', >>> inlined from 'do_aperm' at ../main/array.c:1754:5: >>> ../main/memory.c:3578:16: warning: 'memset' specified bound between >>> 18446744056529682432 and 18446744073709551608 exceeds maximum object >>> size 9223372036854775807 [-Wstr...

...rico wrote: >>> h/t Tim Taylor for pointing out my blindspot :) >>> >>> We have Memcpy() in API already [1], which wraps a 0-aware R_chk_memcpy() [2]. >>> >>> We don't quite have Memset() in API, though; instead we have Memzero() >>> [3] for R_chk_memset(s, 0, n) which is 0-aware memset() [4]. >> I don't think that using wrappers for this is the right approach. Even >> loading an invalid pointer is undefined behavior. While it wouldn't >> matter on typical hardware where R is used today, it could cause a crash >> on...

>From R 4.5.0 [1], all builds of R discourage use of INTEGER() [and friends REAL(), ... and *_RO() equivalents] on length-0 SEXP [2]. Before R 4.5.0, this was the behavior under --enable-strict-barrier. That means the following can segfault under strict builds (e.g. -fsanitize=alignment and -O0): SEXP x = PROTECT(Rf_allocVector(INTSXP, 0)); SEXP y = PROTECT(Rf_allocVector(INTSXP, 0)); const