From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 6 10:20:47 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD961106564A for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 10:20:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from barbara.xxx1975@libero.it) Received: from cp-out4.libero.it (cp-out4.libero.it [212.52.84.104]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586B98FC13 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 10:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wmail46 (172.31.0.236) by cp-out4.libero.it (8.5.107) (authenticated as barbara.xxx1975@libero.it) id 4CCF0A0E0061BFDE; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 11:20:42 +0100 Message-ID: <23015841.925301289038842271.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 11:20:42 +0100 (CET) From: Barbara To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SenderIP: 79.3.210.9 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: R: Re: libstc++ (?) problem on CURRENT? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Barbara List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 10:20:47 -0000 >* Barbara , 20101106 10:57: >> Just to be clear, I'm not looking for a solution about the port here, >> I'm just wondering why the same c++ code is working on 8_STABLE and >> it's segfaulting on CURRENT, considering also that AFAIK the gcc >> version in both the base systems is the same. > >I am a real STL newbie, so I could be wrong. Maybe it's not allowed to >remove an element in the map you're currently iterating. Therefore >you're accessing memory which has been deallocated. > I'm sure you're not worse than me! :) Anyway that's what I was thinking when I wrote the patch. >This may crash on HEAD and not on 8-STABLE for various reasons. For >example, malloc() in HEAD has all sorts of debugging options enabled, >while 8-STABLE does not. > So you think that the problem is really in the original source code, but exposed only on CURRENT. That could be an option. Thanks Barbara