Eric Lemings wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Eric Lemings
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:05 PM
To: 'dev@stdcxx.apache.org'
Subject: RE: [STDCXX-709] ContainerData ctor and
UserClass::from_char()
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:19 PM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: [STDCXX-709] ContainerData ctor and
UserClass::from_char()
...
It seems pretty clear that somewhere between the call TO
operator
-Original Message-
From: Eric Lemings
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:05 PM
To: 'dev@stdcxx.apache.org'
Subject: RE: [STDCXX-709] ContainerData ctor and
UserClass::from_char()
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:58 PM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: [STDCXX-709] ContainerData ctor and
UserClass::from_char()
I doctored up the rwtest driver to print out
-Original Message-
From: Eric Lemings
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:55 AM
To: 'dev@stdcxx.apache.org'
Subject: RE: [STDCXX-709] ContainerData ctor and
UserClass::from_char()
...
Sometimes the __cxa_vec_new2() function is not linked in and gdb
can therefore step
Eric Lemings wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Eric Lemings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:55 AM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: RE: [STDCXX-709] ContainerData ctor and
UserClass::from_char()
...
I think you're right. I set a breakpoint
Eric Lemings wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:41 PM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: [STDCXX-709] ContainerData ctor and
UserClass::from_char()
...
try to create a small test case
I doctored up the rwtest driver to print out progress messages
and recompiled/reran 23.list.assign. The relevant portion of
the test's output is below. It seems that operator_new() is
being called after all, and the allegedly invalid pointer is
actually one previously obtained from operator_new
and
UserClass::from_char()
Eric Lemings wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 3:32 PM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: [STDCXX-709] ContainerData ctor and
UserClass::from_char()
...
So you
if the right operators are being called.
Martin
Brad.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Lemings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:21 PM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: RE: [STDCXX-709] ContainerData ctor and
UserClass::from_char()
I was just comparing
: RE: [STDCXX-709] ContainerData ctor and UserClass::from_char()
I was just comparing the configuration differences for these
two platforms:
HP-UX B.11.21/HP aCC 3.73
HP-UX B.11.31/HP aCC 6.16
See http://people.apache.org/~elemings/diff.out.
There seems to be way to many configuation
-Original Message-
From: Eric Lemings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 2:36 PM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: [STDCXX-709] ContainerData ctor and UserClass::from_char()
...
Now I'm sorta new to this UserClass and container testing but
but WTF is
-Original Message-
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 3:32 PM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: [STDCXX-709] ContainerData ctor and
UserClass::from_char()
...
So you think there's a mismatch between the allocation function
13 matches
Mail list logo
