On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:09:44 +1000, Lex wrote: >2009/8/26 Enrico Tröger <enrico.troe...@uvena.de>: >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:35:54 +1000, Lex wrote: >> >>>Hi All, >>> >>>The configurable build system has been merged into the latest trunk >>>(>r4120). >> >> And crashes Geany at startup under some circumstances :(. >> >> I happily updated my Geany at work this morning and once I started >> it, it crashed. http://nopaste.geany.org/p/m5ab611f0 has a short >> backtrace. Though I didn't manage to find the cause of this crash >> but I also hadn't much time to look into it. >> >> I zipped my .config/geany directory and tried to reproduce here at >> home but with no luck. So, I guess it might be related to the >> project I had opened, unfortunately I didn't copy the project file. >> >> Well, I'll try to debug this a bit more tomorrow. >> >> Lex, maybe you already have an idea what's wrong? >> I wonder what's about the variable i in the outer for loop, is it >> initialised at all? > >No its not initialised, but it shouldn't be a variable i, S/B 1, see >attached patch. Removes the now unused variable too. > > >> Additionally, I noticed the FOREACH_GEANYBUILDCMD_ENTRY () macro >> which, erm, looks weird. It defines an usual for loop which also >> uses a variable i. From my experience, I'd say such things can >> easily lead to weird errors and makes the code less readable. >> > >The decision on macro or not is between you and Thomas, as a C++ >programmer I lean towards the "macros are evil" (but occasionally >necessary) approach.
I would like to remove the macro as I really don't see how it helps. If there are no objections (except from Thomas which I expect :), I will remove the macro soon. Additionally, while searching for uses of this macro, I found several lines which were indented with spaces instead of tabs. That's not critical at all, just want to mention it. I guess this came by Thomas's patch. But it's easily fixable, so no big deal. >If the macro stays I suggest that the uses of the argument in the >macro body be enclosed in (), this is a standard way to reduce >problems in case arguments are expressions. Yes, this is the very least. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
pgpkT92cYclku.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
