-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
> So, my doubt is: if the return type is int instead of unsigned int,
> is this function testable for negative return values?
A quick glance at the code in fe-exec.c and fe-protocol3.c shows that
the underlying variable starts at 0 as an int and in incremented by
one every row, so it seems possible that it could wrap around for
very large results sets and/or boxes with a low representation of 'int'.
There may be some other safeguards in place I did not see to prevent this,
but I don't see a reason why we shouldn't use unsigned int or
unsigned long int here, both for ntups and the return value of the
function.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
End Point Corporation
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200707300937
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFGrfPXvJuQZxSWSsgRA6gZAJ9O5dkgEIstoqhcYjz87V2REUhLWQCgr+uW
1eIVpiahum4ML0Zz7ANlrl0=
=YqJu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----