You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@stdcxx.apache.org by "Martin Sebor (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2006/02/02 03:46:04 UTC
[jira] Assigned: (STDCXX-131) SIGSEGV in std::stable_partition()
due to double destruction
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-131?page=all ]
Martin Sebor reassigned STDCXX-131:
-----------------------------------
Assign To: Anton Pevtsov
Assigned to the original reporter.
> SIGSEGV in std::stable_partition() due to double destruction
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: STDCXX-131
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-131
> Project: C++ Standard Library
> Type: Bug
> Components: 25. Algorithms
> Versions: 4.1.2, 4.1.3
> Environment: all
> Reporter: Martin Sebor
> Assignee: Anton Pevtsov
> Fix For: 4.1.4
>
> From http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-stdcxx-dev/200601.mbox/%3c43DA43F0.9020601@moscow.vdiweb.com%3e:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Re: test for lib.alg.partitions
> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:01:52 +0300
> From: Anton Pevtsov <an...@moscow.vdiweb.com>
> Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> ...
> Martin Sebor wrote:
> > It's certainly possible that there is a bug in the algorithm, but I
> > would be more inclined to suspect the test before the algorithm just
> > because you just made making non-trivial changes to it.
> [...]
> > A simple test case would be helpful.
> The old test version didn't exercise all possible cases. I updated the
> test according to your notes and got the same results. So I still
> suspect the bug in the algorithm.
> The attached file stable_partition_test.cpp illustrates the problem:
> the algorithm fails when the predicate returns true for any element.
> I debug the algorithm and found the following code in algorithm.cc, line
> 760:
> ...
> _Dist __fill = 0;
> const _BidirIter __res =
> __stable_partition_adaptive (__first, __last, __pred, __dist,
> __pair.first, __pair.second,
> __fill, (_TypeT*)0);
> for (_TypeT *__ptr = __pair.first + __fill; !(__pair.first ==
> --__ptr); )
> (*__ptr).~_TypeT ();
> ...
> If the __fill remains equal to 0 after the __stable_partition_adaptive
> call the "for" will never end and will try to call destructors of
> non-existing elements moving from the left bound of the given sequence
> to left. Also if __fill is equal to 1 no destructors will be called, but
> one should be, shouldn't it?
> May be, something like this
> ...
> for (_TypeT *__ptr = __pair.first + __fill; !(__pair.first ==
> __ptr--); )
> (*__ptr).~_TypeT ();
> ...
> will fix the issue?
> And I have another question: what will happen with the temporary buffer
> in stable_partition if the X copy ctor throws an exception? It looks
> like the buffer will leak.
> With best wishes,
> Anton Pevtsov
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira