Re: [Boost-users] [Serialization] Stack Overflow on exit in1.39.0:patch possibly available?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Serialization] Stack Overflow on exit in1.39.0:patch possibly available?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-08 12:12:41

Very astute obvservation.  I've made a(nother) change.  Hopefull this will migrate to the trunk soon.

Robert Ramey
  "Enrico Carrara" <enrico.ecamail_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:ca17d0c90906080012k61174cc5wec021603e71cb65c_at_mail.gmail.com...
  On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:

    I believe I've fixed this at least on my machine and perhaps on the trunk.  I'm tracking down a couple of other bugs but I don't know that I'll be able to get all these fixes tested and checked in by the 15 June deadline for 1.40

  Thank you for your prompt answer, I am sincerely honored by having it.
  As far as I understand, the fix is in recursive_unregister:

  BOOST_SERIALIZATION_DECL(void)
  void_caster::recursive_unregister() const {
      if(void_caster_registry::is_destroyed())
          return;
      void_cast_detail::set_type & s 
          = void_caster_registry::get_mutable_instance();
      // delete all implied void_casts.
      void_cast_detail::set_type::iterator it;
      for(it = s.begin(); it != s.end(); ++it){
          if((*it)->is_shortcut()){
              if(m_derived == (*it)->m_base
              || (*it)->m_derived == m_base){
                  s.erase(it);  // <<< HERE <<<
                  delete *it;
                  it = s.begin();
              }
          }
      }   

  I am under the impression that after s.erase(it) the iterator
  might be invalid and dereferencing it in the following statement
  might lead to undefined behaviour. Actually an error is given
  when I compile and run it on VC2005 (only tried debug conf).

  What do you think of the following variant:
  ...
              if(m_derived == (*it)->m_base
              || (*it)->m_derived == m_base){
                  void_cast_detail::set_type::value_type v = *it;
                  s.erase(it);
                  delete v;
                  it = s.begin();
              }
  ...

  It seems safer to me and eliminates the error.
  Thank you in advance for any possible further advice on the subject.
  Regards,
  eca

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  Boost-users mailing list
  Boost-users_at_[hidden]
  http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users