[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15498] crash in remove_trade_route() - fc_assert_action()?

2010-03-15 Thread pepeto
Update of bug #15498 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Fixed Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at:

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15498] crash in remove_trade_route() - fc_assert_action()?

2010-03-13 Thread pepeto
Update of bug #15498 (project freeciv): Status:None = Ready For Test Assigned to:None = pepeto Planned Release: = 2.3.0

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15498] crash in remove_trade_route() - fc_assert_action()?

2010-03-10 Thread Matthias Pfafferodt
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #15498 (project freeciv): also reported in bug #15573 reason for the crash: fc_assert_action(pcity-trade[o] == 0 || pother_city != NULL, continue); this should be 'pother_city == NULL' The patch removes this fc_assert_*() call and adds a check for pother_city

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15498] crash in remove_trade_route() - fc_assert_action()?

2010-03-10 Thread pepeto
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #15498 (project freeciv): There are similar assertions in S2_2. Why doesn't it fails there? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15498 ___ Message

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15498] crash in remove_trade_route() - fc_assert_action()?

2010-03-10 Thread Matthias Pfafferodt
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #15498 (project freeciv): before I talk to much nonsens like this this should be 'pother_city == NULL' I looked again into the code and look long and hard. There are similar assertions in S2_2. Why doesn't it fails there? trunk is missing the check 'if

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15498] crash in remove_trade_route() - fc_assert_action()?

2010-03-10 Thread Matthias Pfafferodt
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #15498 (project freeciv): The missing part of the text: 1279 for (o = 0; o NUM_TRADE_ROUTES; o++) { 1280 struct city *pother_city = game_find_city_by_number(pcity-trade[o]); 1281 1282 fc_assert_action(pcity-trade[o] == 0 || pother_city != NULL, continue);

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15498] crash in remove_trade_route() - fc_assert_action()?

2010-03-10 Thread pepeto
Follow-up Comment #7, bug #15498 (project freeciv): The reason I opened this bug was, that the fc_assert_action never executes the action 'continue' (see report) ... What? It does 'continue' after having putting the error message. Else, it would have crashed.

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15498] crash in remove_trade_route() - fc_assert_action()?

2010-03-10 Thread Matthias Pfafferodt
Follow-up Comment #8, bug #15498 (project freeciv): What? It does 'continue' after having putting the error message. Else, it would have crashed. Sorry, you are right. I still had the extra assert() call included in this build ... ___

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15498] crash in remove_trade_route() - fc_assert_action()?

2010-03-02 Thread Matthias Pfafferodt
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #15498 (project freeciv): today I looked again into this bug report. The assertion is not needed at this place (and another one within this file). I did not have the time at the moment to completely test the attached patch but it seems to solve the problem. (file

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15498] crash in remove_trade_route() - fc_assert_action()?

2010-02-27 Thread Matthias Pfafferodt
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?15498 Summary: crash in remove_trade_route() - fc_assert_action()? Project: Freeciv Submitted by: syntron Submitted on: Samstag 27.02.2010 um 13:54 Category: general Severity: 3

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15498] crash in remove_trade_route() - fc_assert_action()?

2010-02-27 Thread pepeto
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #15498 (project freeciv): Related question: I added an assert() call to fc_assert_fail() to get the core dump. How can / should I debug this without adding assert() again? Start with _-F_ to raise the SIG_ABRT signal, or _-F sig_ to raise the signal you want.