Re: [Boost-users] [multi_index] SIGABRT in multi_index_containerconstructor

17 Feb 2007

      Hi,

Ill do that for you and even try again presenting a example which does not
work, but you have to wait a little bit. I have a exhibition next Weekend
and a bunch of work up to then, but after it ill give it a new try with the
multi_index_containers and provide the information then.
Greetings,
Manuel Jung

Ps.: Thanks for the great work on the multi_index library, i think it is
very great. :-)
...
----- Mensaje original -----
De: Manuel Jung 
Fecha: Sábado, Febrero 17, 2007 8:07 pm
Asunto: Re: [Boost-users] [multi_index] SIGABRT in
multi_index_containerconstructor
Para: boost-users@lists.boost.org
...
Hi,
I think something ist bad about the SAFE MODE or INVARIANT
CHECKING. With them active, i have some trouble with other
variables and containers of my programm. e.g. with a
curlpp::Multi and even with a std::list. If i switch these
Scripts of everything works fine.
when they were switched on, the size() member didnt work
for example. I dont know about the library that much but it
seems there is some bug in the SAFE MODE scripts.
:-(
Greetings
Manu
Hello Manu,
Unfortunately, your mere statement of the problem doesn't
provide me with enough information to try to discern
whether there's really an issue with Boost.MultiIndex or
if the problem lies somewhere else. I'd need a reproducible
test case to work with, and I understand you're not in
the position to produce one. Of course there can be
a bug in the implementation of safe mode or invariant
checking modes --I just can't know from the evidence you
presented.
I would like to ask you for a last favor: Maybe you could
download a snapshot of the future Boost 1.34 release from
http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost/snapshot/boost-RC_1_34_0.tar.bz2
and see what's the outcome with this? There are some safe
mode-related bugs fixded in this version, though none of
them looks like having to do with your problem at first
sight. But if you only could give it a try...
Thank you,
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
...
Ps.: For now ill use std::queue and try later upgrade to
multi_index's for
more features and better priority sorting.
...
"JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z" wrote:
...
----- Mensaje original -----
De: Manuel Jung 
Fecha: Jueves, Febrero 15, 2007 11:17 pm
Asunto: Re: [Boost-users] [multi_index] SIGABRT in
multi_index_containerconstructor
Para: boost-users@lists.boost.org
[...]
...
yes, the safe mode is on with this code:
#if !defined(NDEBUG)
#define BOOST_MULTI_INDEX_ENABLE_INVARIANT_CHECKING
#define BOOST_MULTI_INDEX_ENABLE_SAFE_MODE
#endif
Hey, I had an overlook! The jung.cpp file I sent you only
defines the safe mode macro, but you've got to define
both this and the invariant checking macro to reproduce
the problematic conditions. Could you please add
(at line 1) the missing
#define BOOST_MULTI_INDEX_ENABLE_INVARIANT_CHECKING
and check whether you still are crash free? I don't
think this overlook will make any difference, but it's
better to be on the safe side.
Hi,
no difference here. All the same in the test case. It runs just
fine.>
Manuel Jung
...
Thank you,
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users