On 12/22/2010 06:04 PM, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:59:28 -0500
> Christopher Michael<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/22/2010 05:56 PM, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:46:10 -0500
>>> Christopher Michael<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there a backtrace for this segfault ?? I'm asking because the illume2
>>>> keyboard module has very similar code, and I've never seen it segfault
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> dh
>>>>
>>>> On 12/22/2010 05:22 PM, Enlightenment SVN wrote:
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> this will avoid a segv, but the entire function is broken and should be
>>>>> looked at by someone who knows the code
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Author: discomfitor
>>>>> Date: 2010-12-22 14:22:59 -0800 (Wed, 22 Dec 2010)
>>>>> New Revision: 55698
>>>>> Trac: http://trac.enlightenment.org/e/changeset/55698
>>>>>
>>>>> Modified:
>>>>> trunk/e/src/modules/illume/e_kbd_buf.c
>>>>>
>>>>> Modified: trunk/e/src/modules/illume/e_kbd_buf.c
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>> --- trunk/e/src/modules/illume/e_kbd_buf.c 2010-12-22 11:23:30 UTC
>>>>> (rev 55697) +++ trunk/e/src/modules/illume/e_kbd_buf.c 2010-12-22
>>>>> 22:22:59 UTC (rev 55698) @@ -164,9 +164,10 @@
>>>>> if ((actual_len + strlen(str) + 1)> actual_size)
>>>>> {
>>>>> actual_size += 64;
>>>>> - actual = realloc(actual, actual_size);
>>>>> + actual = malloc(actual_size);
>>>>> + EINA_SAFETY_ON_NULL_RETURN(actual);
>>>>> + strcpy(actual, str);
>>>>> }
>>>>> - strcpy(actual + actual_len, str);
>>>>> actual_len += strlen(str);
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>> I don't know if the segv has ever occurred, but I'm running clang on e
>>> because I've been getting too many crashes lately and found this :)
>>>
>>
>> Ok. Well I am asking because of your commit message: "this will avoid a
>> segv, but the entire function is broken" .. How is it broken ??
>>
>> Remember tho ... you can't always believe what clang tells ya ;)
>>
>> dh
> oh I know, I read through it all carefully before deciding to change anything.
:)
> this function seems to be assuming that all the variables at the top are
> getting assigned or something (> 0 checks, for instance?) which leads me to
> believe that someone was thinking about something else while they were
> working :)
>
Well, from what I am reading, there are getting assigned some values
initially:
char *actual = NULL;
int actual_len = 0;
int actual_size = 0;
Hmm, not seeing any > 0 checks in that function ... tho there is a > 1
check ;) to make sure that the str returned from the previous function
call (_e_kbd_buf_keystroke_string_get) is valid.
I'm not arguing with your change, it seems fine :) I'm just wondering
about the 'segfault' or 'broken code' statement ;)
dh
--
"If C gives you enough rope to hang yourself, then C++ gives you enough
rope to bind and gag your neighborhood, rig the sails on a small ship,
and still have enough rope to hang yourself from the yardarm"
- Anonymous quote from the The UNIX-HATERS Handbook
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers
to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and,
should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database
without downtime or disruption
http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
