| 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 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yichen Xie | 2003-01-29 00:30:07 | Re: [CHECKER] 9 potential out-of-bounds array access errors |
| Previous Message | Yichen Xie | 2003-01-28 23:34:38 | Re: [CHECKER] 9 potential out-of-bounds array access errors |