int vs size_t conversion and comparison#22
Open
LukeHHA wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
inttype within the loop and as the type forrandomIndexstuck out to me due to the consistent use ofsize_twithin the class. I would recommend the change to size_t for consistency but also because signed vs unsigned comparison can lead to wrapping. As mentioned in the comments, while it would seem extremely unlikely that the number of keys would exceedINT_MAXit would lead to conversion semantics. This could potentially cause an unsigned value to become signed leading to a negative index or just UB.