Tom Lane escribió: > One thing I was wondering about earlier today is whether libxml isn't > expecting NULL-return-on-failure from the malloc-substitute routine. > If we take control away from it unexpectedly, I wouldn't be a bit > surprised if its data structures are left corrupt. This might lead to > failures during cleanup.
Hmm, this is a very good point. I quick look at the source shows that they are not very consistent on its own checking for memory allocation errors. For example, see a bug I just reported: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508662 The problem is that many routines look like this: xmlXPathNewNodeSet(xmlNodePtr val) { xmlXPathObjectPtr ret; ret = (xmlXPathObjectPtr) xmlMalloc(sizeof(xmlXPathObject)); if (ret == NULL) { xmlXPathErrMemory(NULL, "creating nodeset\n"); return(NULL); } and others would call this code and then happily use the return value without checking for null. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
