Damian Krzeminski wrote: > 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. >
I'll revert sipXproxy.sh changes for now. I talked to Kevin and XCF-2897 is not trivial and I do not want to be a reason for the system not starting. 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
