-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
> So, my doubt is: if the return type is int instead of unsigned int, > is this function testable for negative return values? A quick glance at the code in fe-exec.c and fe-protocol3.c shows that the underlying variable starts at 0 as an int and in incremented by one every row, so it seems possible that it could wrap around for very large results sets and/or boxes with a low representation of 'int'. There may be some other safeguards in place I did not see to prevent this, but I don't see a reason why we shouldn't use unsigned int or unsigned long int here, both for ntups and the return value of the function. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] End Point Corporation PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200707300937 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFGrfPXvJuQZxSWSsgRA6gZAJ9O5dkgEIstoqhcYjz87V2REUhLWQCgr+uW 1eIVpiahum4ML0Zz7ANlrl0= =YqJu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
