To me, none of that answers the question why everyone in 64-bit was able to replicate the problem, while people in 32-bit machines weren't able to replicate the bug. That just seems like an inconsistency. Are we willing to just say it's something that the versions of the compilers handled differently, or might there be a bug somewhere near this in our own code related 64-bit systems?
--Greg On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Troy A. Griffitts <[email protected]> wrote: > Again, the details with this, if interested are: > > results++ mandates increment then return of a temporary which represented > the object before the increment. > > You are assigning your retval to the internal text value of this temporary, > which goes out of scope immediately after the assignment (calling the d-tor > and thus freeing the memory). > > Hope this helps. > > -Troy. > > > > Matthew Talbert wrote: >> >> It turns out that if we use ++results instead of results++ we don't >> have a problem. So it would seem that there is still something funny >> going on. >> >> Nevertheless we will not count on the result persisting. >> >> Matthew >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] >> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel >> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page > > > _______________________________________________ > sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page > _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
