Travis Vitek wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
Travis Vitek wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
I suspect the SEGV discussed in the thread below is due to the patch
for STDCXX-216: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=616673
Reverting the patch makes the error go away. Travis, can you look
into it when you have a moment please?
Thanks
Martin
Yes, I see the error. I'm creating a patch and a regression test right
now.
Thanks!
We'll need to take some time to write robust tests for the associative
containers, just like Farid did for sequences last year. Otherwise it's
far to easy to inadvertently introduce regressions. The tests we have
are probably completely inadequate.
We also need to put together some sort of a regression hunter. With all
the failures we still have in our test suite it's impossible to tell if
one or more of them is a regression.
Martin
Committed to trunk in http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=639495.
Great, many thanks! Btw., in your ChangeLog you mention avoiding UMR.
I applied your patch but still get the dbx RUI that STDCXX-87 talks
about (see below). Was the UMR something different?
Read from uninitialized (rui) on thread 1:
Attempting to read 7 bytes at address 0xfffffd7fffdff719
which is 153 bytes above the current stack pointer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) stopped in
std::pair<__rw::__rw_tree_iter<int,long,int*,int&,__rw::__rw_rb_tree_node<std::allocator<int>,int,int,__rw::__ident<int,int>
> >,bool>::operator= at 0x0000000000404910
0x0000000000404910: operator=+0x0020: hlt
Martin
