Christoph von Wittich wrote:
As Dmitry wrote about this, I will add the comment that this does not look like the proper way to fix this problem. The proper way is to keep the pointer from overflowing in the first place and that would be to place a check where it is set and updated to either go negative (which should not be allowed) or to be incremented past INT_MAX. This can be implemented in several different ways, and since I have not looked at the code, I could not make a proper suggestion but would suggest that the pointer be checked before incrementing and after setting.
James McKenzie