FUCKING MOTHERFUCKER OF A FUCKING STACK FUCKING OVERFLOW FUCKING FUCK FUCK FUCK. Fuck you standard .NET drawing classes. Fuck.

That's some rage.

rwar im a tiger is now very rawr...

*Reita tries to give a fuck*

 

*Fuckgiving canceled*

 

*Restarting procedure*

 

*Access denied*

 

*No fucks were given*

*Reita tries to give a fuck*

 

*Fuckgiving canceled*

 

*Restarting procedure*

 

*Access denied*

 

*No fucks were given*

?

I instantly had to think about:

also,

>2012

>using managed languages

Not to pop your nice little meme's bubble but stack overflows only occur when you are dealing with arrays like strings. The overflow is caused by accessing a value of the array past the ammount allocated on the stack by the subroutine at the beginning of the function. So when calculating a mass using a recursive function you would get an integer overflow when you reach the INT_MAX value. Because integers dont change size you cant get a stack overflow that way.

Not to pop your nice little meme's bubble but stack overflows only occur when you are dealing with arrays like strings. The overflow is caused by accessing a value of the array past the ammount allocated on the stack by the subroutine at the beginning of the function. So when calculating a mass using a recursive function you would get an integer overflow when you reach the INT_MAX value. Because integers dont change size you cant get a stack overflow that way.

You just screwed all the fun with facts

Not to pop your nice little meme's bubble but stack overflows only occur when you are dealing with arrays like strings. The overflow is caused by accessing a value of the array past the ammount allocated on the stack by the subroutine at the beginning of the function. So when calculating a mass using a recursive function you would get an integer overflow when you reach the INT_MAX value. Because integers dont change size you cant get a stack overflow that way.

It's a joke, not a meme.

Not to pop your nice little meme's bubble but stack overflows only occur when you are dealing with arrays like strings. The overflow is caused by accessing a value of the array past the ammount allocated on the stack by the subroutine at the beginning of the function. So when calculating a mass using a recursive function you would get an integer overflow when you reach the INT_MAX value. Because integers dont change size you cant get a stack overflow that way.

A stack overflow is something like this:

int CalcMomsMass()
{
   return CalcMomsMass();
}

If you compile this with GCC and start it in a linux terminal it will exit with a stack overflow. Its when you call too many functions and the stack pointer is out of the stack limits... So the meme is right(meh, is a meme with Denis Ritchie, the C language creator, no? For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_overflow

The overflow you talk about is a buffer overflow, when you try to write/read out from the limits of a array or a pointer.

Not to pop your nice little meme's bubble but stack overflows only occur when you are dealing with arrays like strings. The overflow is caused by accessing a value of the array past the ammount allocated on the stack by the subroutine at the beginning of the function. So when calculating a mass using a recursive function you would get an integer overflow when you reach the INT_MAX value. Because integers dont change size you cant get a stack overflow that way.

A stack overflow is something like this:

int CalcMomsMass()
{
   return CalcMomsMass();
}

If you compile this with GCC and start it in a linux terminal it will exit with a stack overflow. Its when you call too many functions and the stack pointer is out of the stack limits... So the meme is right(meh, is a meme with Denis Ritchie, the C language creator, no? For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_overflow

 

I understood that even though I can't code (well, I'm learning the basics)

Of course this is not an stack overflow:

int i = 0;

while(true)
{
   i ++;
}

 

its just a type limit overflow(which i think apadayo was talking about)and the variable, when arrives to the maximum number it can reach(2 ^ 32) it resets and gets the folowing next value, which is -2 ^ 32.

 

The other overflow apadayo was talking about is, as I said, a buffer overflow, for examploe:

   unsigned char* buffer = (unsigned char*)malloc( sizeof(unsigned char) * 24);
   unsigned char out = buffer[25];

You simply get out of the buffer limits, either writting or reading a array.

StackOverflow brings me back to the old DWServer testing days

meh, is a meme with Denis Ritchie, the C language creator, no?

 

Yes, he passed away October last year.

 

And it's a joke, not a meme.

Actually, I was dividing by 0 ._.

Actually, I was dividing by 0 ._.

LOL, that's an example of a stupid and hard to track error xD