So is there a decision for this issue? Will it be a flag for protoc or
a patch (I think I saw somewhere a post mentioning that the patch was
not going to be used because of other issues)? And any possible ETA
for the solution?
On Aug 31, 5:33 pm, Kenton Varda wrote:
> I'm OK with a patch that
This is simplified version of my code:
if ( !message.ParsePartialFromArray((void *) buffer, len ) ||
!message.IsInitialized() ) {
// error
return;
}
std::cout << "is_valid value: " << message.is_valid() << "\n";
if( ! message.has_is_valid(
1. I run it under valgrind. It shows "unconditional jump" on the line
that is calling "has_is_valid()", and if I remove that if() block,
there is no memcheck or leakcheck problems at all.
I have to mention that: a) the messages that I am trying to parse are
generated by apps that are using an older
what I meant about "unconditional jump" was in fact "Conditional jump
or move depends on uninitialised value(s)" message.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com.
To uns
so it turned out that the box I was compiling my code on had a library
which was based on the new proto file, while the box that I was
running the code on was based on the older version of the library that
was based on the older proto (without the new attribute in it)!
Everything is fine now.
--
