Skip to content

GitLab

  • Projects
  • Groups
  • Snippets
  • Help
    • Loading...
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in / Register
I
integration-cfmesh
  • Project overview
    • Project overview
    • Details
    • Activity
    • Releases
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 1
    • Issues 1
    • List
    • Boards
    • Labels
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge Requests 0
    • Merge Requests 0
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Operations
    • Operations
    • Incidents
    • Environments
  • Packages & Registries
    • Packages & Registries
    • Container Registry
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
    • Value Stream
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Members
    • Members
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • Community
  • integration-cfmesh
  • Issues
  • #2

Closed
Open
Created Nov 04, 2017 by Mark Olesen@markMaintainer

potential sizing issue for DynList

Not sure if this is intentional or not. For the constructor

DynListCame(label sz)

will set both the allocated size and the addressable area to be sz. The testDytestDynList.C

https://develop.openfoam.com/Community/integration-cfmesh/blob/port-v1712/testingInterfaces/testDynList/testDynList.C#L40

and https://develop.openfoam.com/Community/integration-cfmesh/blob/port-v1712/testingInterfaces/testDynList/testDynList.C#L50

suggests that this may not be intended (the addressable content being any random junk).

I seem to remember having something similar in a very early incarnation of DynamicList, but this form of the constructor got changed to meaning the same as "reserve allocated space, but start with a zero addressable size".

I did a quick check (by temporarily removing this constructor) and it doesn't seem to be used in too too many places. Nonetheless, it could be worth taking a look at.

@Juretic

Edited Nov 04, 2017 by Mark Olesen
Assignee
Assign to
None
Milestone
None
Assign milestone
Time tracking
None
Due date
None