[GRASS-dev] vector large file support

[Markus Metz]

Glynn Clements wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> External callers aren't a problem, as they only ever call
> RTreeInsertRect() with level == 0. It's only when RTreeDeleteRect()
> uses it to re-insert internal nodes that the truncation can arise.
>   
I'm pretty sure that this caused the segfault.
BTW, external callers also call RTreeDeleteRect() with level == 0 and 
RTreeSearch()
>
> My inclination would be to change the "int tid" parameters to
> "struct Node *child", and make RTreeInsertRect() a compatibility
> wrapper for the benefit of external callers, i.e.:
>
> -static int RTreeInsertRect2(struct Rect *r, int tid, ...
> +static int RTreeInsertRect2(struct Rect *r, struct Node *child, ...
>
> -int RTreeInsertRect(struct Rect *R, int Tid, ...
> +int RTreeInsertRect1(struct Rect *R, struct Node *child, ...
>
> int RTreeInsertRect(struct Rect *R, int Tid, struct Node **Root, int Level)
> {
> 	assert(level == 0);
> 	return RTreeInsertRect1(R, (struct Node *) Tid, Root, Level);
> }
>
>   
same for deletion

-static int RTreeDeleteRect2(struct Rect *r, int tid, ...
+static int RTreeDeleteRect2(struct Rect *r, struct Node *child, ...

-int RTreeDeleteRect(struct Rect *R, int Tid, ...
+int RTreeDeleteRect1(struct Rect *R, struct Node *child, ...

compatibility wrapper:
int RTreeDeleteRect(struct Rect *R, int Tid, struct Node **Root, int Level)
{
assert(level == 0); /* I like that, external callers should never ever 
delete an internal rectangle */
return RTreeDeleteRect1(R, (struct Node *) Tid, Root, Level);
}

then replace "(struct Node *)tid" with "child" in RTreeInsertRect2() and 
RTreeDeleteRect2()
and replace RTreeInsertRect() with RTreeInsertRect1() in RTreeDeleteRect()
That would be a very elegant solution.
There will still be a compile warning with RTreeSearch() when (struct 
Node *) gets truncated to an int on 64bit systems. Since this happens 
only on level 0 where an int was stuffed in the pointer, (struct Node *) 
should not be larger than INT_MAX. I hope. RTreeSearch() has worked fine 
before, so it should still work after these changes.

> I don't think the problems go any further than that.
>   
Let's hope so. I go testing now.