Jack Orenstein <jorenstein@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
