incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: regression in set::insert() (was: Re: __rw::__string_ref::size sigsegv)
Date Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:38:30 GMT
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
t@1 (l@1) 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

Mime
View raw message