From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: Carlo Parravicini Cc: "linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org" Subject: Re: ELDK 3.0 C++ Problem From: Wolfgang Denk Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 20 May 2004 16:02:44 +0200." <200405201602.44480.c.parravicini@sehitaly.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 18:14:16 +0200 Message-Id: <20040520161421.C7222C109F@atlas.denx.de> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: In message <200405201602.44480.c.parravicini@sehitaly.com> you wrote: > > > What makes you think so? I bet a case of beer that the 'new" returned > > just fine, and that your program segfaulted in memset() instead. > > Lost the beer, the code is wrong but the segfaulted is in the "new" > (checked with a printf before the memset & also with gdb eh eh) No. The new returns just fine in my test. The segfault happens in the memset() call when you write to memory that you don't own. I tested it. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd@denx.de The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. - R. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/