[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> This was likely a typo. In its current state, it's accessing uninitialized
>> memory. It looks like it's conceivable that an incorrect nextRowid could be
>> later used if the uninitialized value happens to be a small integer (smaller
>> than pC->nextRowid) and the "valid" flag therefore doesn't get set to false.
>>
>> --- vdbe.c~ 2005-12-19 12:42:25.000000000 -0500
>> +++ vdbe.c 2006-10-22 16:32:45.000000000 -0400
>> @@ -2937,7 +2937,7 @@
>> if( pOp->p2 & OPFLAG_NCHANGE ) db->nChange++;
>> if( pOp->p2 & OPFLAG_LASTROWID ) db->lastRowid = pNos->i;
>> if( pOp->p2 & OPFLAG_CSCHANGE ) db->csChange++;
>> - if( pC->nextRowidValid && pTos->i>=pC->nextRowid ){
>> + if( pC->nextRowidValid && pNos->i>=pC->nextRowid ){
>> pC->nextRowidValid = 0;
>> }
>> }
>>
>
> As it happens, pC->nextRowidValid is always false in this
> context, as far as I can tell, so the pTos->i variable is
> never accessed.
That explains why in many years of use, I've never seen an actual corruption
caused by this. Thanks.
> The fix checked in was to remove the test altogether and unconditionally set
> pC->nextRowidValid to 0.
If, as you say, pC->nextRowidValid is always false anyway, wouldn't the
correct fix be to not even unconditionally set pC->nextRowidValid to 0; just
delete those two original lines entirely? It sounds like you're now
unnecessarily setting a variable that's already false to false. (Or did I
misunderstand your statement?)
Derrell
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
