[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Question
From: |
Chuck Robey |
Subject: |
Re: Question |
Date: |
Sat, 16 May 1998 09:32:50 -0400 (EDT) |
On Sat, 16 May 1998, John W. Eaton wrote:
> I believe that the `this' that's being deleted is a __bsrep object,
> not a basic_string object.
>
> The assignment operator checks to see that it is not trying to do an
> assignment to itself. If it is not, it deletes the current contents
> of the string on the LHS of the operator= (possibly just decrementing
> the reference count). This part of the operation is done in the
> rep()->release() function call. Next it grabs a pointer to the data
> from the string on the RHS of the operator=, assigning it to
> this->dat. The str.rep()->grab() function call also increments the
> reference counter.
>
> I think the code is ok.
>
> Does the following simpler test program work correctly?
Thanks for the explanation. I will spend more time with a reading of
the bastring.cc/.h code, I would profit by it. Your test program ran
ok. I don't yet understand why I'm getting the sigbus right at that
point ... but I can make some additional tests regarding the state of
the "this" I guess.
I've already done all the obvious things, like changing the compiling
flags, removing optimization, like that. The npos operator is being
optimized out, but I haven't finished looking at possible side effects
(the compiler, I guess, thinks they're aren't any).
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data
address@hidden | communications topic, C programming, and Unix.
213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 |
Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic (FreeBSD-current)
(301) 220-2114 | and jaunt (NetBSD).
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
- Question, Chuck Robey, 1998/05/15
- Question, John W. Eaton, 1998/05/15
- Re: Question, Chuck Robey, 1998/05/15
- Re: Question, John W. Eaton, 1998/05/15
- Re: Question, Chuck Robey, 1998/05/16
- Re: Question, John W. Eaton, 1998/05/16
- Re: Question,
Chuck Robey <=
- Re: Question, Chuck Robey, 1998/05/19
- Re: Question, John W. Eaton, 1998/05/19
- Re: Question, Chuck Robey, 1998/05/19
- Re: Question, Chuck Robey, 1998/05/19