Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So does that meant that the latest reincarnation of APR::Pool > implementation has this problem fixed?
If you're talking about my APR::Pool patch, then no, it didn't resolve this. The underlying apr_pool_t will be destroyed by APR::Pool::DESTROY in your examples, so using any pool-derived objects after that event is totally unsafe. If it doesn't segfault, either you're quite lucky or there's a bug in my patch. -- Joe Schaefer --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
