Scott Lawrence wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 12:07 -0400, Joseph Attardi wrote: >> Joseph Attardi wrote: >>> I didn't think that would cause it to crash, though. I am running with >>> the latest from SVN (13629). >> After some GDB help from Andrei, I was able to pinpoint where the crash >> was occurring. I've attached the stack trace to this message. If anyone >> can help or offer any pointers, I'd be grateful. >> plain text document attachment (sipXproxy-crash-info.txt) >> Core was generated by `/usr/local/sipx/bin/sipXproxy'. >> Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault. >> #0 TiXmlNode::FirstChild (this=0x0, _value=0x8064202 "routes") at >> ../../../src/sipXportLib/src/xmlparser/tinyxml.cpp:338 >> 338 for ( node = firstChild; node; node = node->next ) >> (gdb) where > > This is what happens when the proxy is started without > forwardingrules.xml, which won't be allowed later today when I get the > new sipXsupervisor code checked in... > > >
Looks like some changes in: http://sipxecs.sipfoundry.org/ViewVC/sipXecs?view=rev&rev=13511 were a bit premature. While proxy does not have to install *rules.xml.in file, sipXconfig still generates the .xml.in versions of the *rules file. sipXconfig contributors are removing configuration preprocessing for all the files that are rewritten Should we revert sipXproxy.sh.in changes applied in 13511 until http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XCF-2897 gets fixed? Otherwise no dial plan changes are properly applied. D. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
