Re: [PATCHES] backend crashing despite tsearch2 patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: psql-mail(at)freeuk(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] backend crashing despite tsearch2 patch
Date: 2003-09-18 04:21:40
Message-ID: 8432.1063858900@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-patches

"Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> On a matter of style, it's been a while since I've seriously considered cross
> platform C. Is it the done thing to expect:
> int *i = (int *)calloc(1,sizeof(int));
> to give the condition *i == 0 (assuming the memory allocation worked)?

calloc is defined to zero out the block of memory it returns (as opposed
to malloc which may return a block containing any random junk).

A more serious question is whether any of this code should be using
calloc/malloc as opposed to palloc. I'd prefer to see it rewritten to
use palloc wherever possible; but that begs the question of what the
required lifespan of the allocations is.

+ #ifndef NULL
+ #define NULL ((void *)0)
+ #endif

It has been roughly twenty years since a C platform existed that didn't
predefine NULL ... and the ones that did not would likely not recognize
the ANSI-C-ism "void *". So the above is unhelpful by any measure.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-09-18 04:27:20 Re: varchar vs. text
Previous Message Michael Garriss 2003-09-18 03:59:44 varchar vs. text

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nigel J. Andrews 2003-09-18 09:35:11 Re: [GENERAL] backend crashing despite tsearch2 patch
Previous Message Nigel J. Andrews 2003-09-17 23:03:22 Re: [PATCHES] backend crashing despite tsearch2 patch