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