Jack Orenstein <jorenstein@Archivas.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Good catch! What platform and compiler are you using exactly? I'd
>> imagine that on most platforms, the size of that array is effectively
>> rounded up to 12 bytes due to alignment/padding considerations, which
>> would mask the mistake. Yours must somehow be putting something
>> critical right after the array.
> We're using gcc-4.0.2-8.fc4 on FC4 (intel). I believe that we didn't
> just get lucky with the overflow. One of our Linux experts says that
> our libc is doing memory bounds checking.
Ah so, that explains how come it noticed. BTW, I see that somebody
already changed the array size to 16 bytes in HEAD --- so it's just
the back branches that need fixing.
regards, tom lane
