From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30319 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2015 16:59:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 30308 invoked by uid 89); 25 Mar 2015 16:59:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: etr-usa.com Received: from etr-usa.com (HELO etr-usa.com) (130.94.180.135) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:59:57 +0000 Received: (qmail 85447 invoked by uid 13447); 25 Mar 2015 16:59:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO polypore.west.etr-usa.com) ([73.26.17.49]) (envelope-sender ) by 130.94.180.135 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 25 Mar 2015 16:59:55 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) Subject: Re: static vs. shared linking From: Warren Young In-Reply-To: <20150325090453.GB3017@calimero.vinschen.de> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 17:10:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <850E2E37-EA86-448E-9B9F-206C662E14E5@etr-usa.com> References: <5510A9AB.7020607@tiscali.co.uk> <5511AF73.9070607@tiscali.co.uk> <20150325090453.GB3017@calimero.vinschen.de> To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00456.txt.bz2 On Mar 25, 2015, at 3:04 AM, Corinna Vinschen w= rote: >=20 > And this is where it comes from. It's a call to >=20 > void basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>::reserve(size_type __res) David, what happens if you say=20 wtext.reserve(1); inside runTests() before the call to crash()? If that makes the symptom disappear, I wonder if there=E2=80=99s some probl= em with a Cygwin *.exe owning a std::string that gets resized by a Cygwin *= .dll. If so, that probably *is* a memory ownership coordination problem th= at affects Cygwin proper. I=E2=80=99ve run both versions under valgrind on a Linux box here, and they= can find no fault with your code. On manual inspection, I, too find it to= be perfectly cromulent. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple