Bug 77920

Summary: In STL, assigning a set data structure the values in another "set" by the "=" operator does not work properly
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Need Real Name <jaju>
Component: gcc3Assignee: Jakub Jelinek <jakub>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact:
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 8.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i686   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-10-01 15:02:46 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Need Real Name 2002-11-15 12:39:20 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020827

Description of problem:
outline of the code:
set< string > urlset;
for ( i = 0; i < N; i++ ) {
....
urlset = someFunctionWhichReturnsSet(i,...); // Works the first time
i++;
...
}

This works during the first pass of the for loop. Doesn't work from the next
time. I tried the "set.erase()" call and other such tricks.

IT WORKS WITH GCC2.9XXX ( RH 2.96, that is ... both on RH 7.3 and on 8.0 with
compat* packages )

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Write any program like the above
2.Compile it ( does compile )
3.Fails if compiler gcc3.2 ( not checked with other gcc3.x )
Did not work with the one in rawhide too.
	

Actual Results:  The "set" data structure contained no members. set.size()
returned 0 from the second time onwards.
Worked fine with gcc2.95/6

Expected Results:  Whatever happened with gcc2.95/6 was the expected way it
should have run

Additional info:

No error messages as such. The output was not as expected.
I'm sorry if the information I've provided is not enough. Tried my best though!

Severity is mentioned "high" because it is of a lot of importance to developers,
as a lot of my code has stopped working!

Comment 1 Jakub Jelinek 2002-12-04 16:29:04 UTC
Please attach a self-contained (minimal) testcase, not just an outline of what you're
trying to do.

Comment 2 Benjamin Kosnik 2004-10-01 15:02:46 UTC
Never completed bug report. Lacking reproducible test case.

-benjamin