[Bug libstdc++/54185] New: condition_variable not properly destructed

2012-08-05 Thread architectbum at hotmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185 Bug #: 54185 Summary: condition_variable not properly destructed Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priorit

[Bug libstdc++/54185] condition_variable not properly destructed

2012-08-06 Thread architectbum at hotmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185 --- Comment #2 from architectbum at hotmail dot com 2012-08-06 14:19:16 UTC --- Created attachment 27952 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27952 testcase

[Bug libstdc++/54185] condition_variable not properly destructed

2012-08-06 Thread architectbum at hotmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185 --- Comment #3 from architectbum at hotmail dot com 2012-08-06 14:20:03 UTC --- Because the problem is in thread-handling code, it's impossible to create a completely deterministic testcase; however, the newly-attached testcase.cc (compiled

[Bug libstdc++/54185] condition_variable not properly destructed

2012-08-06 Thread architectbum at hotmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185 --- Comment #6 from architectbum at hotmail dot com 2012-08-06 17:18:26 UTC --- I don't have this_thread::sleep_for in my build, but presumably it wouldn't help as the segfault comes inside the pthread_cond_wait function. The testcase

[Bug c++/52427] New: problem with default copy constructor and -O

2012-02-28 Thread architectbum at hotmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52427 Bug #: 52427 Summary: problem with default copy constructor and -O Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.6.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior