Greetings,
I think I have my very first patch to submit. "Contributing Patches"
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Contributing_Patches>
suggests that I take it to d...@openoffice.org first, but I am bringing
it here instead. Here, with some rationales and questions, is what I
contemplate ...
component : Database access
subcomponent : none
( because ODBC is not offered )
found in version: DEV300_m75
platform : other
os : Linux
priority : P5
( unless some platform is less forgiving than mine, perhaps? )
issue type : patch
initial state : new
assigned to : oj
( because that is what
<http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/submission_gateway.html>
does when you click "connectivity" )
summary : operator delete mismatch in ODatabaseMetaDataResultSet
description ...
In file
connectivity/source/drivers/odbcbase/ODatabaseMetaDataResultSet.cxx,
line 86 assigns m_pRowStatusArray from array new but line 100
does a scalar delete. In a non-production build, this causes
numerous assertion failures at
sal/cpprt/operators_new_delete.cxx line 95 when, for example,
you open a query to an ODBC database.
And then the patch ...
--- ODatabaseMetaDataResultSet.cxx_m75 2010-03-21 23:37:01.000000000
-0400
+++ ODatabaseMetaDataResultSet.cxx_tje 2010-03-21 23:38:03.000000000
-0400
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@
osl_incrementInterlockedCount( &m_refCount );
dispose();
}
- delete m_pRowStatusArray;
+ delete [] m_pRowStatusArray;
}
//
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
void ODatabaseMetaDataResultSet::disposing(void)
I have tested this only to the extent of observing fewer assertions
raised as I open my favourite query against an ODBC database.
Should I say more? Less? Something else? I welcome your comments.
Cheers,
Terry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@dba.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@dba.openoffice.org
