Re: Text search segmentation fault

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
Cc: Tommy Gildseth <tommy(dot)gildseth(at)usit(dot)uio(dot)no>, General Postgres Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Text search segmentation fault
Date: 2009-01-29 17:05:19
Message-ID: 25986.1233248719@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, seems it's not so much a "64 bit" error as a "signed vs unsigned
>> char" issue?

> Yes, but I don't understand why it worked in 32-bit box.

You were casting to unsigned int. So the offset added to the base
pointer for, say, 255 in the char would be equivalent to -1 on a 32-bit
box, or 0xFFFFFFFF on 64-bit. The latter would likely provoke SIGSEGV
due to indexing out of the allocated process workspace, the former just
in scribbling on the byte adjacent to where it should have. Still
broken, but not a segfault.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ivan Sergio Borgonovo 2009-01-29 17:09:26 ssl to more than one server
Previous Message Jason Long 2009-01-29 17:04:17 Re: Pet Peeves?