> 1. The patch doesn't seem to print out the filename and the line number > of where the expection happened. This is crucial for identifying what > exactly happened. I don't quite understand this - if you've got a debugger attached, the execution will stop at the assert instead of terminating, you'll have the full stack leading up to the crash, not just the file/line you asserted.
> 2. Why use 0x40000015 instead of STATUS_FATAL_APP_EXIT? STATUS_FATAL_APP_EXIT is defined in a later version of the Windows SDK (Vista I believe), and I didn't want to break XP. On XP, it will still work the same, but the number might not be identified by the debugger as such. -- Paul Betts <[email protected]> On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Two comments: > > 1. The patch doesn't seem to print out the filename and the line number > of where the expection happened. This is crucial for identifying what > exactly happened. > > 2. Why use 0x40000015 instead of STATUS_FATAL_APP_EXIT? > > Martin _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
