Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <16190633.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Travis Vitek <vitek@roguewave.com>
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: regression in set::insert() (was: Re: __rw::__string_ref::size
 sigsegv)
In-Reply-To: <47E2E3F1.1070409@roguewave.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <47E291CA.2040804@roguewave.com> <16189742.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <47E2E3F1.1070409@roguewave.com>


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.

Travis
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/regression-in-set%3A%3Ainsert%28%29-%28was%3A-Re%3A-__rw%3A%3A__string_ref%3A%3Asize-sigsegv%29-tp16182909p16190633.html
Sent from the stdcxx-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.