(In reply to comment #34)
> I'm not saying that comment #29 is wrong. I'm saying that the existing code
> ought to have been written to handle this case. Clearly one solution is to
> replace the code as suggested. But fixing the code ought to be feasible
> too. Are there other lurking bugs where code assumes addressability?
>
(In reply to comment #34)
> I'm not saying that comment #29 is wrong. I'm saying that the existing code
> ought to have been written to handle this case. Clearly one solution is to
> replace the code as suggested. But fixing the code ought to be feasible
> too. Are there other lurking bugs where code assumes addressability?
>
It's a bug that needs to be fixed.