Re: [sqlite] Same error is flagged in 3.2.8 for sqlite3GenerateConstraintChecks() [was [sqlite] Known issue in 3.2.7 in vaccum?
Russell Leighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thx. > > I'll re-test with 3.3.1. > > That said, isn't 3.2.8 supposed to be the stable release? > That depends on what you mean by "stable". If you mean "unchanging", then yes, 3.2.8 is stable. The 3.2.x series is closed and will never again change. All new code, all bug fixes, etc, go into 3.3.x. Please do not be mislead by the "alpha" label on 3.3.1. Unless you are using the newer features, the CVS head probably has far fewer bugs than 3.2.8. -- D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [sqlite] Same error is flagged in 3.2.8 for sqlite3GenerateConstraintChecks() [was [sqlite] Known issue in 3.2.7 in vaccum?
Thx. I'll re-test with 3.3.1. That said, isn't 3.2.8 supposed to be the stable release? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russell Leighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Recompiled using 3.2.8 of sqlite, same issue is flagged by valgrind. 3.2.8 is a single-line change to 3.2.7. That they show the same bug is not surprising. There have been a bazillion minor tweaks to SQLite since 3.2.7/8. If you see the same problem in 3.3.1 or the latest from CVS, then I am interested. But I cannot reproduce your problem so I am going to assume it has already been fixed. -- D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [sqlite] Same error is flagged in 3.2.8 for sqlite3GenerateConstraintChecks() [was [sqlite] Known issue in 3.2.7 in vaccum?
Russell Leighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Recompiled using 3.2.8 of sqlite, same issue is flagged by valgrind. > 3.2.8 is a single-line change to 3.2.7. That they show the same bug is not surprising. There have been a bazillion minor tweaks to SQLite since 3.2.7/8. If you see the same problem in 3.3.1 or the latest from CVS, then I am interested. But I cannot reproduce your problem so I am going to assume it has already been fixed. -- D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[sqlite] Same error is flagged in 3.2.8 for sqlite3GenerateConstraintChecks() [was Re: [sqlite] Known issue in 3.2.7 in vaccum?
Recompiled using 3.2.8 of sqlite, same issue is flagged by valgrind. Russell Leighton wrote: Also, this happens under any constrained insert...from the stack trace below you would that that would be true. This is confirmed during another test scenario doing an insert statement into a constrained tabled where I got the same warning about insert.c:980 Russell Leighton wrote: During valgrind ( www.valgrind.org ) testing under linux I was executing "vaccum" and got: ==17449== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) ==17449==at 0x1CF2200C: sqlite3GenerateConstraintChecks (insert.c:980) ==17449==by 0x1CF233F6: sqlite3Insert (insert.c:629) ==17449==by 0x1CF2B72E: sqlite3Parser (parse.y:600) ==17449==by 0x1CF377BD: sqlite3RunParser (tokenize.c:388) ==17449==by 0x1CF2ED6B: sqlite3_prepare (prepare.c:440) ==17449==by 0x1CF3B376: execSql (vacuum.c:42) ==17449==by 0x1CF3B429: execExecSql (vacuum.c:61) ==17449==by 0x1CF3B721: sqlite3RunVacuum (vacuum.c:207) ==17449==by 0x1CF3D6AD: sqlite3VdbeExec (vdbe.c:4288) ==17449==by 0x1CF40F7B: sqlite3_step (vdbeapi.c:217) Is this already known, or should I enter a bug? Are pre-release regression tests done under valgrind or purify? Might be a good idea. Thx Russ
[sqlite] Known issue in 3.2.7 in vaccum?
During valgrind ( www.valgrind.org ) testing under linux I was executing "vaccum" and got: ==17449== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) ==17449==at 0x1CF2200C: sqlite3GenerateConstraintChecks (insert.c:980) ==17449==by 0x1CF233F6: sqlite3Insert (insert.c:629) ==17449==by 0x1CF2B72E: sqlite3Parser (parse.y:600) ==17449==by 0x1CF377BD: sqlite3RunParser (tokenize.c:388) ==17449==by 0x1CF2ED6B: sqlite3_prepare (prepare.c:440) ==17449==by 0x1CF3B376: execSql (vacuum.c:42) ==17449==by 0x1CF3B429: execExecSql (vacuum.c:61) ==17449==by 0x1CF3B721: sqlite3RunVacuum (vacuum.c:207) ==17449==by 0x1CF3D6AD: sqlite3VdbeExec (vdbe.c:4288) ==17449==by 0x1CF40F7B: sqlite3_step (vdbeapi.c:217) Is this already known, or should I enter a bug? Are pre-release regression tests done under valgrind or purify? Might be a good idea. Thx Russ
