Differences between C++ 'new' operator and 'malloc()' (NOT a C/C++ question)

[Claude SIMON]

NightStrike wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Claude SIMON <sc.cygwin.com@zeusw.org>
> wrote:
>> Let's consider a Java native component which only calls a 'malloc(1)'.
>> It
>> doesn't even test the returned value (it is usually not a good idea, but
>> it doesn't matter here).
>>
>> This component :
>> - compiled with g++ under Linux : works,
>> - compiled with g++ under Mac OS : works,
>> - compiled with Visual C++ under Windows : works,
>> - compiled with g++ under Cygwin : CRASHES !
>>
>> It crashes as soon the 'malloc(1)' function is called. You don't even
>> have
>> the opportunity to test the returned value, nor to use it. It's perhaps
>> a
>> Cygwin bug, or perhaps a JVM/JRE/JDK bug ; I don't know and I don't
>> bother
>> (but if someone will make some investigation about that, I'm ready to
>> help
>> him or her if I can).
>>
>> When you replace the 'malloc()' by the 'new' operator, then the
>> component
>> compiled with g++ under Cygwin works too.
>
>
> Can you provide a reduced self contained small test case that
> demonstrates the problem?  That'll be your fastest path to a
> resolution.  It's also the easiest way to explain what you are seeing.
>

Thanks for your interest.
I've made a test case which can be found at :
	http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/epeios/bugs/jcmc/?root=epeios
There is a 'README' file with further explanations.

--
Claude SIMON (sc.cygwin.com@zeusw.org)


--
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