On 1/14/21 4:19 AM, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Thu, 14 Jan 2021 04:15:18 -0500 > schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck <[email protected]>: > >> On 1/14/21 3:45 AM, Kornel Benko wrote: >>> Am Thu, 14 Jan 2021 07:53:16 +0100 >>> schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Am Donnerstag, dem 14.01.2021 um 00:58 +0100 schrieb Kornel Benko: >>>>> How to reproduce >>>>> >>>>> 1.) Open lyx file e.g. Additional.lyx >>>>> 2.) select AdvFind >>>>> 3.) select regexp-mode >>>>> 4.) insert any text not in this file >>>>> 5.) select search for section >>>>> 6.) change to not ignore format >>>>> 7.) start search >>>>> 8.) cancel the search (with escape) >>>>> 9.) clean the regex content and try to insert anything ==> crash >>>>> >>>>> BTW, lyx2.3 does not crash. >>>> Does not crash for me. Can you produce a backtrace? >>>> >>>> Jürgen >>>> >>> Yes, attached. Last commit was fcea6c47. >> That is even weirder. You're getting an assertion, on the ground that a >> TOC is being requested that does not yet exist, and the type is >> "tableofcontents", which is supposed always to exist. But maybe that >> makes sense if it is the TOC for the F&R Buffer itself that is being >> queried: Probably it does not have a TOC at all. >> >> You might try reverting the problematic commit and see if that helps >> (i.e., if master minus that commit asserts). That would at least give us >> another data point. >> >> Oh, I see it! The TocBackend::toc method has two versions: A const one >> and a non-const one. Because of the const patch, the const one is being >> called, I think. It asserts when the requested TOC does not exist, >> whereas the other one just creates it and moves along. Though now I'm >> puzzled why I don't get a crash. But that makes me think that this has >> just revealed some other bug. > Good news :)
OK, the assertion happens for you because this test master != buffer() && !master->hasGuiDelegate() passes for you and fails for me. I'm not sure why it would pass, though. I'm especially puzzled because the active Buffer at #13 in your backtrace is the same as what's reported as master at #8. So the test ought to fail. Riki -- lyx-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
