Mail Archives: djgpp/2002/04/15/20:45:06
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 21:31:45 +0300, "Eli Zaretskii"
<eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
>You used the phrase "error message", but the line that mentions
> 0x0006f8ce ___cxa_bad_typeid+1394
>doesn't look as an error message. That's why I thought you were
>talking about the crash message, which does look like error message:
To me, it looks like a error message, and I did mention that I
searched for information about '___cxa_bad_typeid' and not a GPF
message; it's the 'bad' part that makes me think of it as an error
message because if it is 'bad' something went wrong, you know ?
>Anyway, since we are both not native English speakers, it should be no
>surprise that this misunderstanding happened. There's no need to be
>so upset because of that.
I wasn't upset about the misunderstanding, and I'm not sure why you
think that I was upset at this point. I was merely taken aback that
even though I referred to '___cxa_bad_typeid' in the preceding
sentence in my question, you thought that I enquired about the reason
why 'free' crashed.
>> >Then I don't understand your question at all. Your program crashed
>> >because it somehow corrupted the malloc memory chain. Given that, why
>> >is it important to know what is '___cxa_bad_typeid'?
It was that part that made me upset. I don't like this kind of "Hey, I
answered the question how I understood it, and everyhing else doesn't
I'm a curious old bastard and want to know things I currently don't.
I didn't know what that '___cxa...' message meant, so I asked.
It's how I learn, you know ?
>So there's nothing
>special about '___cxa_bad_typeid' in your case; that function has
>nothing to do with the reasons your program crashes.
Thanks, for the information. If you had said that in the first or in
the second message - when you knew that I actually wanted to know what
the '___cxa...' message was all about - my already frail nerves - too
much coffee, too many days without finding anything about it, etc. -
wouldn't have been strained even more.
>> these enough reasons for you, or can we just say that you don't know
>> what '___cxa_bad_typeid' means and were pointing out the obvious as it
>> was something you did know ???
And, yes, that part I wrote while being upset. I normally check for
such outbursts before I send my messages, but failed to do it this
time. I'm sorry about that.
- Raw text -