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

From: Manuel Jung (gzahl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-17 15:14:43

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 <gzahl_at_[hidden]>
> Fecha: Sábado, Febrero 17, 2007 8:07 pm
> Asunto: Re: [Boost-users] [multi_index] SIGABRT in
> multi_index_containerconstructor
> Para: boost-users_at_[hidden]
> 
>> 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 <gzahl_at_[hidden]>
>> >> Fecha: Jueves, Febrero 15, 2007 11:17 pm
>> >> Asunto: Re: [Boost-users] [multi_index] SIGABRT in
>> >> multi_index_containerconstructor
>> >> Para: boost-users_at_[hidden]
>> >> 
>> >> [...]
>> >>> 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_at_[hidden]
>> > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Boost-users mailing list
>> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users