http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48070
Brad changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48070
--- Comment #2 from Brad 2011-03-11 09:40:27 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Even at -O0, valgrind complains about using uninitialised value:
> (tested with gcc 4.4.5, x86_64-linux)
This is likely an unintelligent question, but does that outp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48070
Brad changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48070
Summary: Application fails assertion when compiled with
optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46424
--- Comment #2 from Brad 2010-11-11 02:53:43 UTC
---
Also, whoops, the remove code is broken. It doesn't increment it at the end of
the while loop. This bug has no impact on the problem I was encountering.
Sorry for the swarm of posts, it's re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46424
Brad changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46424
--- Comment #1 from Brad 2010-11-11 02:37:56 UTC
---
I forgot to mention one thing. The code that seems to acting suspisciously is
this bit:
toDo.erase( *out ); //Putting this code here instead of the end breaks this
code.
std::map >::const_i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46424
Brad changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |critical
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46424
Summary: Iterators being improperly invalidated
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassig.