On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 at 09:43, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 at 11:04, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thinking about this more, I think it's best not to risk back-patching.
> > It *might* be safe, but it's difficult to really be sure of that. The
> > bug itself is pretty unlikely to ever happen in practice, hence the
> > lack of prior complaints, and in fact I only found it by an
> > examination of the code. So it doesn't seem to be worth the risk.
>
> That seems like good logic to me. Perhaps we can reconsider that
> decision if users complain about it.
Thanks. Pushed to master only.
I think the other part (avoiding overflows in numeric_mul) is fairly
straightforward and uncontentious, so barring objections, I'll push
and back-patch it in a couple of days or so.
Regards,
Dean
