> None of the internal assertions in tzfile.c have to do with low
> memory, they have to do with logical consistency and expected
> outcomes.
Okay, so let's look at the stack trace again and where it failed.
The failing line 779 in __tzfile_compute is:
if (__tzname[0] == NULL)
{
assert (num_types == 1); // <-- boom
So, where is __tzname[0] being set? Depending on the path taken, it can
be either of these:
line 627: __tzname[0] = NULL; // initial value
line 646: __tzname[0] = __tzstring (&zone_names[types[i].idx]);
line 686: __tzname[0] = __tzstring (zone_names);
line 756: __tzname[dst] = __tzstring (&zone_names[idx]);
Internally, __tzstring calls malloc. If malloc fails, it returns NULL.
So it is entirely possible that this assertion will fail because of an
out-of-memory situation.
No of course this is bad, but so far the integrity has not been
compromised. It just means that the function really should return with
an error now. As far as I can see there are currently no facilities for
returning an error in this particular function, but I guess it really
should be able to propagate allocation failures to the library functions
that call it, so that those can return an error to the user (if that is
part of their API contract, that is).
Cheers,
Johannes
