From: Pat Eyler <rubypate@...>
Date: 2006-04-26T02:08:04+09:00
Subject: Re: possible defect in array.c

On 4/25/06, Jacob Fugal <lukfugl@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/25/06, Pat Eyler <rubypate@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This one may be a false positive, I'm not sure.  If it is, I'll happily mark
> > it that way at the coverity site.
>
> This one looks like a false positive to me. Up to the switch on line
> 2114, [beg] is never touched. In each of the three delineated cases
> for the switch, [beg] is set. (In case 2, if [rb_range_beg_len
> succeeds], I *assume* [beg] is set by the function; if it fails, we
> fall through to case 3 which does set [beg].) The only way [beg] could
> be unset at line 2133 is if [argc] were less than 1 or greater than 3.
> That, I hope, is gauranteed by the input to the function (along with
> the hack on line 2109 for blocks).

rb_range_beg_len (in range.c) does set beg and len.  I'm hoping the
other edge cases (argc <1 or >3) are covered too.  If anyone else
wants to speak with a little more authority, I'm all ears.

>
> Jacob Fugal
>
>