Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [CHECKER] 9 potential out-of-bounds array access errors

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Yichen Xie <yxie(at)cs(dot)stanford(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, mc(at)cs(dot)stanford(dot)edu
Subject: Re: [CHECKER] 9 potential out-of-bounds array access errors
Date: 2003-01-29 00:05:34
Message-ID: 12211.1043798734@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Yichen Xie <yxie(at)cs(dot)stanford(dot)edu> writes:
> Both are flagged though--the other one's 85 lines down in the bug report..  
> ;) I probably should've sorted the list by location to minimize confusion.

That's okay, I probably should've read the whole mail before commenting ;-)


I'm confused by the entry flagging pl_comp.c:527:

[BUG] is plpgsql_nDatums 0 here? also, sizeof (plpgsql_nDatums) =
2*sizeof(PLpgSQL_datum *)

Is the thing concerned because malloc(0) may yield NULL on some
platforms?  If so, should I object that it ought to be smart enough to
know the loop won't execute in that case?  Or am I missing something?
Also, I don't understand your comment about the sizeof() relationship.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Yichen XieDate: 2003-01-29 00:30:07
Subject: Re: [CHECKER] 9 potential out-of-bounds array access errors
Previous:From: Yichen XieDate: 2003-01-28 23:34:38
Subject: Re: [CHECKER] 9 potential out-of-bounds array access errors

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group