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

Attachment: pgpkT92cYclku.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel

Reply via email to