[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug-gawk] Special Comparisons: uninitialized array index
From: |
Andrew J. Schorr |
Subject: |
Re: [bug-gawk] Special Comparisons: uninitialized array index |
Date: |
Mon, 7 Aug 2017 11:59:29 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 11:07:13AM -0400, Andrew J. Schorr wrote:
> The fix is less obvious to me. One could patch str_array.c:str_lookup as
> follows:
>
> --- a/str_array.c
> +++ b/str_array.c
> @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ str_lookup(NODE *symbol, NODE *subs)
> * "Array indices are always strings."
> * ....
> */
> - if (subs->stfmt != STFMT_UNUSED) {
> + if (subs->stfmt != STFMT_UNUSED || subs == Nnull_string) {
> /* The string was generated using CONVFMT. */
> NODE *tmp;
>
> But I'm not sure that's the best solution. Perhaps it should be attacked
> on the extraction side in the str_list function, but that would probably
> lead to memory leaks. Arnold -- what do you think?
Sorry -- I read the code too fast. We could certainly fix this in str_list, but
str_lookup seems more conceptually correct and consistent.
-Andy
Re: [bug-gawk] Special Comparisons: uninitialized array index, Andrew J. Schorr, 2017/08/07
- Re: [bug-gawk] Special Comparisons: uninitialized array index,
Andrew J. Schorr <=
- Re: [bug-gawk] Special Comparisons: uninitialized array index, Andrew J. Schorr, 2017/08/07
- Re: [bug-gawk] Special Comparisons: uninitialized array index, arnold, 2017/08/07
- Re: [bug-gawk] Special Comparisons: uninitialized array index, Andrew J. Schorr, 2017/08/07
- Re: [bug-gawk] Special Comparisons: uninitialized array index, arnold, 2017/08/08
- Re: [bug-gawk] Special Comparisons: uninitialized array index, arnold, 2017/08/10