From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri May  9 18:35:08 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA10460
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 9 May 1997 18:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from filoli.filoli.com (filoli.filoli.com [204.162.0.10])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA10455
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 9 May 1997 18:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sunspot.filoli.com ([204.162.1.17])
	by filoli.filoli.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA25852;
	Fri, 9 May 1997 18:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from diamond.filoli.com (diamond [204.162.1.183])
	by sunspot.filoli.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA08173;
	Fri, 9 May 1997 18:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199705100132.SAA08173@sunspot.filoli.com>
Received: by diamond.filoli.com (NX5.67e/NX3.0X)
	id AA12748; Fri, 9 May 97 18:32:46 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain
Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2)
In-Reply-To: <199705100046.RAA01368@phaeton.artisoft.com>
X-Nextstep-Mailer: Mail 3.3 (Enhance 1.3)
Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.118.2)
From: Kevet Duncombe <kevet@filoli.com>
Date: Fri,  9 May 97 18:32:44 -0700
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Subject: Re: g++ shared library segfaults
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Reply-To: kevet@filoli.com
References: <199705100046.RAA01368@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Organization: Filoli Information Systems
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

You wrote:
> > > for (long i = 0; i < count; ++i) {
> > > ViewerColorInfo& info = _color_info->item_ref(i);
> > > if (strcmp(info._name, name) == 0) {
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > later on it checks the value of i. I change the scope of i and doc just
> > > fired right up. Will "fix" similar referencs in doc.
> > >
> > > Uh, that's not an illegal reference.  The scope of i extends to the
> > > end of the containing block, not the end of the "for" statement.
>
> For what it's worth, MSCVC++ and Borland C++ and Oregon C++ all have
> this same "compiler bug".  Are you *sure* about the determination of
> scope?

Though it's been that way in the past, according to the Nov. 1996
working paper at:
	http://www.csci.csusb.edu/dick/c++std/cd2/stmt.html
a change is coming (and it looks like the PC vendors are tracking it).

"3 If  the  for-init-statement is a declaration, the scope of the name(s)
  declared extends to the end of the for-statement.  [Example:
          int i = 42;
          int a[10];

          for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
                  a[i] = i;

          int j = i;        // j = 42
   --end example]"

				--kevet