Yes, it seems like the bug your mention is the bug I have encountered. However,
it is non only
documentation bug: get_widget does not throw anything, it just crashes. I have
investigated the problem
some further, dynamic_cast turned out to be unrelated to the crash, the reason
lies in the
get_widget_checked code :
Gtk::Widget* Builder::get_widget_checked(const Glib::ustring& name, GType type)
{
// Get the widget from the GtkBuilder file.
GtkWidget *cobject = get_cwidget(name);
--------> cobject is NULL now
// Check if it has the correct type.
--------> and G_OBJECT_TYPE(cobject) crashes(access violation on Win32)!
if(!g_type_is_a(G_OBJECT_TYPE(cobject), type))
{
g_critical("gtkmm: widget `%s' (in GtkBuilder file) is of type `%s' but
`%s' was expected",
name.c_str(), G_OBJECT_TYPE_NAME(cobject), g_type_name(type));
return 0;
}
return Glib::wrap (GTK_WIDGET (cobject), true /* take ref */);
}
So, there is no way to process get_widget errors. I seems like a critical bug
for me.
Thank you,
Alexander Ivanenko.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Shaduri <[email protected]>
To: Саша Иваненко <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:03:26 +0400
Subject: Re: Can't process Gtk::Builder::get_widget errors
>
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:55:04 +0400
> Саша Иваненко <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I use Gtk::Builder to load UIs from glade-generated xml on win32(Visual
> > Studio 9.0).
> > Problem is what if widget with a given name does not exist get_widget
> > generates access violation
system
> > exception, without any chance for me to catch it. All I can do is to check
> > widget existence using
gtk+
> > native gtk_builder_get_object call before calling Builder::get_widget. As
> > far as I understand the
root of
> > the problem is what get_widget_checked internal call returns 0, and
> > dynamic_cast from 0 throws AV
instead
> > of casting to 0 ( or throwing bad_cast?).
> >
> > Is it Win32 specific problem? Ho do the get_widget is intended to behave in
> > case of non-existent
widget
> > name? I would appreciate any suggestions.
>
> I think you are refering to the bug I reported a while ago:
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=548022
>
> It seems to have been renamed to "documentation" issue, which is incorrect.
>
> Thanks,
> Alexander
>
_______________________________________________
gtkmm-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
