Gordon, Thanks for a quick turnaround of the patch. We will try it and see.
Thanks again Nitin -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 10:21 AM To: dev@qpid.apache.org Subject: Re: FW: problems starting the version 18 broker and its Crash On 09/07/2012 02:43 PM, Nitin Shah wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the information. I started doing some investigation on the > new release mainly because I could not see what we were ( if > possible) doing wrong with the release. The broker would start > executing and immediately one was getting an assert as shown below in > the output I generated with running it under GDB. It asserts because > it fails the test in file types.cpp in qpid/ha line 38 ( assert(value > < count). I noticed that this is happening as a result of the call > from the HaBroker::initialize() function line 90 in the HaBroker.cpp > file where a QPID_LOG is being invoked. > > I believe the root of the problem is the BrokerInfo class constructor > is not initializing the private class data called "BrokerStatus > status" which is defined in file BrokerInfo.h . Good analysis; thanks! > *****I assume we are going to need a patch or an update for the broker > to be used. > > NOTE:: If I start the broker with the "--log-enable warning" or for > that matter others like notice, the broker comes up and works fine. > But, if the broker is started with no log-enable parameters, IT > CRASHES. This seems pretty strange as I thought you guys would have > seen this. It actually works fine for me for repeated restarts, though if I run under valgrind the uninitialised value is reported and of course by inspection of the code you have correctly identified a problem. I guess we have just been unlucky in not hitting the problem... > I am running the broker on a CentOs 6.2 system. We have been using > version 16 to date. The images are created a new and loaded on a VM, > so the VM has no remnants of the version 16, so it is clean version > 18 load and use. > > If I wish to continue using this release, can someone tell me what the > correct process for getting a patch is? Alternatively, what is the > patch I should apply, meaning can I add a initialize of the status > parameter and what is the CORRECT enum value to set it to? The attached patch should take care of the crash. I believe the status is correctly set later on, just not in time for the logging statement. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
