-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 5:56 PM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r616003 -
/stdcxx/branches/4.2.x/tests/utilities/20.temp.buffer.cpp
Farid Zaripov wrote:
Earlier
Farid Zaripov wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:26 PM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r616003 -
/stdcxx/branches/4.2.x/tests/utilities/20.temp.buffer.cpp
Should we do this in rw_new.h (or
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 6:27 PM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r616003 -
/stdcxx/branches/4.2.x/tests/utilities/20.temp.buffer.cpp
Farid Zaripov wrote:
-Original Message-
Scott Zhong wrote:
Could
addr = (char*)(void*)size_t(-1);
Be a better choice for a bad address?
I'm not sure.
The weird looking expression in the function tries to compute
an address that's beyond the last text segment page, or 16MB
past the address of the bad_address function. It was
I tried to access the red zone and a seg fault didn't occur but when
trying to access the kernel address space it does cause a seg fault. I
propose to change 0.printf.cpp to the following:
Index: 0.printf.cpp
===
--- 0.printf.cpp
