RE: [Boost-users] Re: MultiIndexSet invariant test failure

From: Manges, Ross G (Ross.G.Manges_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-13 16:55:38

> OK, this is a different story.
Yes, unfortunately.

> 2. The comparison predicate you're passing is not correct (i.e. it 
> does not implement a strict weak ordering.)
OK, this is possible. I'm using a function object. What exactly does it
mean to implement strict weak ordering?  I need to search the
documentation again...

> 3. Elements are dynamic (pointers to objects) and you did
> a premature delete on one or some of them.
I'm using boost::shared_ptr types, so they shouldn't get cleaned up
while they are contained by the MultiIndexSet.  However, I'm starting to
suspect that the shared_ptrs are not behaving well.

> 5. You're running out of memory and new() does not throw bad_alloc 
> (this can happen in MSVC++ 6.5 and, maybe, 7.0.)
I'm using gcc on RHEL3; I don't believe this is happening.

> 6. You haven't
> selected a multithreaded version of the runtime library.
I need to investigate this; what 'runtime library' are you referring to?

> 7. You
> guarded write access to an index but *not* to other indices of the 
> same container.
I gaurded ~everything~ ;)

> Questions:
> 
> 1. I'd like to analyze this. I can run tests in GCC/Cygwin. Could your

> test be run on this platform? If not, could you at least disclose the 
> code so that I can take a look at it?
We're developing on the linux platform, so that's not a barrier, but
unfortunately, it will be very difficult to convince my employer to
allow me to disclose any code. Thank you, however, for offering to
analyze it.

> 2. Does your
> debugging environment allow you to peek at the variables when the
> assert happens?    
I'm using some acient version of gdb/ddd.  I could try, although I'm not
sure how to do that yet.

> Thank *you* for reporting the problem.
Sure, although it's probably something I'm doing wrong. I really do
appreciate your help. This MultiIndexSet is perfect for my needs; I just
need to get it working right!