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.
which patch are you talking about Joe, the one that was committed or else?
Do you have any tests that clearly demonstrate the problem? I was surprised that my previous tests all worked just fine. I want to start with a failing test before trying to fix it.
-- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
