Quoting Matthew Vanecek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm kinda skeptical about using the contents of a freed Split to see if
> the Split has been freed, though. What if something else has
> overwritten the freed memory? Why is that particular pointer guaranteed
> to still be == (char *)1 if the split
Quoting Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And yes, this code has been there a long time, in order to detect a
> > double-free.
>
> That's a bug then; you can't access freed memory, period.
Well, yes and no...
> Indeed, it is fair game
On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 21:09 -0600, Matthew Vanecek wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 11:37 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> It's faulting on my P3 nowadays for some reason. I wasn't sure if it
> was a glibc thing or what. Quite annoying. I w
Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And yes, this code has been there a long time, in order to detect a
> double-free.
That's a bug then; you can't access freed memory, period.
Indeed, it is fair game for an attempted read out of freed memory to
fault; it's been freed, you can't read
On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 11:37 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I see nothing wrong with this code. It should be perfectly legal to
> > set an invalid pointer like this. Unless you are specifically doing
> > bounds-checking on pointer-sets I can't s
Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see nothing wrong with this code. It should be perfectly legal to
> set an invalid pointer like this. Unless you are specifically doing
> bounds-checking on pointer-sets I can't see how setting a pointer
> would cause a SEGV. You're not ACCESSING the
I see nothing wrong with this code. It should be perfectly legal to
set an invalid pointer like this. Unless you are specifically doing
bounds-checking on pointer-sets I can't see how setting a pointer
would cause a SEGV. You're not ACCESSING the memory then, you're only
setting the pointer. It
Christian Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, I understand the problem. I've already changed the
> gnc_..._get_desc_entry and now it displays the memo in the way I
> want. But I know that's not all.
Okay.
>> It's not a two-line change -- there's a bunch of logic changes that
>> are require
David G Hamblen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi:
>
> My problem is with the weighted-average computation causing the balance
> sheet to be unbalanced. I've been seeing this for several years now. I
> just compiled and installed 1.8.10 and the problem is unchanged. The
> calculation seems to use
