Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih(at)nhh(dot)no> writes:
> > As far as I
> > can tell, the only actual error in Paul Vixie's code is that the two
> > lines you quote above should be:
> > 			else if (--size > 0)
> > 				*++dst = 0, dirty = 0;
> 
> No, that's still wrong, because it will error out (jump to emsgsize)
> one byte sooner than it should.  The loop is fundamentally broken
> because it wants to grab and zero a byte before it knows whether there
> are any digits for the byte.

Damn!  You're right!  I swear I tested that change at home, and found
it to do what I wanted -- but now that I've put it into my production
system at work, it doesn't work here.  Heck, I even read the code very
carefully to verify that it was all that was needed!  I think I really
need the holiday I'm taking next week!

To keep this in sync with BIND, maybe Paul could take a look, and fix
the code the way he wants it there?

Whoops.  It just hit me.  When I tested my "quick fix" last night, I
just looked at what happened to the data, and ignored the return
value.  Silly of me...

-tih
-- 
Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity.  --Niles Crane, "Frasier"

In response to

• Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.4 items at 1998-10-09 21:20:22 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: D'Arcy J.M. Cain	Date: 1998-10-10 13:08:37
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: hackers-digest V1 #1013
Previous:	From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo	Date: 1998-10-10 12:12:40
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.4 items