Juha Heinanen writes:
> i have not been able to find, why value of
> call_profile.patch_ruri_next_hop is true (= 236). it is because the
> variable is left uninitialized somewhere?
>
> this whole patch_ruri_next_hop business has been introduced to sems in
> june. could it be that there is a bug in the new code?
when i restart sems, call_profile.patch_ruri_next_hop has different
value after each restart, which seems to indicate that the variable is
not properly initialized.
i added changed patch_ruri_next_hop() to patch_ruri_next_hop(0), but it
didn't help:
AmBasicSipDialog::AmBasicSipDialog(AmBasicSipEventHandler* h)
: status(Disconnected),
cseq(10),r_cseq_i(false),hdl(h),
logger(0),
outbound_proxy(AmConfig::OutboundProxy),
force_outbound_proxy(AmConfig::ForceOutboundProxy),
next_hop(AmConfig::NextHop),
next_hop_1st_req(AmConfig::NextHop1stReq),
patch_ruri_next_hop(0),
outbound_interface(-1),
nat_handling(AmConfig::SipNATHandling),
usages(0)
{
//assert(h);
}
i would appreciate if someone having a clue on c++ programming could
look into this.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
Sems mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/sems
