On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 11:37 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I see nothing wrong with this code. It should be perfectly legal to > > set an invalid pointer like this. Unless you are specifically doing > > bounds-checking on pointer-sets I can't see how setting a pointer > > would cause a SEGV. You're not ACCESSING the memory then, you're only > > setting the pointer. It should be no more special than setting the > > pointer to NULL or to some other arbitrary value. > > There are processors which have special address registers, and which > do fault as soon as you store certain kinds of illegal addresses in > them rather than waiting for an access. How important these > processors are, and whether you want to worry about them, is a > different question. > > Thomas
It's faulting on my P3 nowadays for some reason. I wasn't sure if it was a glibc thing or what. Quite annoying. I was wondering if someone could reproduce this on his/her machine, to see if it's my machine/setup or something else. I'm kinda skeptical about using the contents of a freed Split to see if the Split has been freed, though. What if something else has overwritten the freed memory? Why is that particular pointer guaranteed to still be == (char *)1 if the split is run through the function again? Thanks, -- Matthew Vanecek perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' ******************************************************************************** For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me. I'm always getting in the way of something...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
