Hi Michael,
Good job, I know it was not trivial. I have just tested the patch
against the same boost versions under Linux and it works as expected.
Thank you for the fix, it has been committed in revision 7002.
Regards,
Orson
On 08/02/2016 02:26 AM, Michael Steinberg wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> att
Le 02/08/2016 à 02:26, Michael Steinberg a écrit :
> Hello all,
>
> attached is v2 of the crash fix. My original patch would move the function
> out of the transition
> before a copy of it could be pushed to the state stack.
>
> The second patch refactors coroutine, mostly for clarification and
Hello all,
attached is v2 of the crash fix. My original patch would move the
function out of the transition before a copy of it could be pushed to
the state stack.
The second patch refactors coroutine, mostly for clarification and
correctness purposes. A few documentation hints were added. I
Le 01/08/2016 à 05:15, Michael Steinberg a écrit :
> Hey,
>
> pinpointing the problem proved really difficult, I didn't expect it where it
> was...
> This bug existed before my 1.61-patch and did not surface because DELEGATE
> would not clear its
> content on destruction. See the attached patch.
Hi there!
Thank you for investigating the problem. After reading your explanation,
I am not completely sure the bug has existed before the boost-1.61
patch. In the mentioned patch, the order of transitions.clear() and
COROUTINE constructor has been reversed [1]. Do you think it could cause
the bu
Hi Wayne, Jean-Pierre,
Excuse my late answer, I was away for a week.
I could not reproduce the problem here, so right now I am unable to say
whether it fixes the recent issue. I will try again later with another
virtual machine. I believe the stable branch is not affected by the bug,
but we will
On 08/01/2016 05:15 AM, Michael Steinberg wrote:
> Hey,
>
> pinpointing the problem proved really difficult, I didn't expect it
> where it was...
> This bug existed before my 1.61-patch and did not surface because
> DELEGATE would not clear its content on destruction. See the attached
> patch.
>
Tom or Orson,
Would you please take a look at this patch and see if makes sense? I'm
wondering if resolves any of the other GAL bugs we have been experiencing.
Thanks,
Wayne
On 7/31/2016 11:15 PM, Michael Steinberg wrote:
> Hey,
>
> pinpointing the problem proved really difficult, I didn't ex
Hey,
pinpointing the problem proved really difficult, I didn't expect it
where it was...
This bug existed before my 1.61-patch and did not surface because
DELEGATE would not clear its content on destruction. See the attached patch.
That being said, I'm not yet 100% sure the macro'ed code for
Le 31/07/2016 à 19:00, Michael Steinberg a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> of course! So I'm not to sure if 1.60 is supposed to work on windows, I think
> I read it might be
> bugged for that specific version and platform combination. I will investigate
> that. However the
> intent was to not change anythi
Hello,
of course! So I'm not to sure if 1.60 is supposed to work on windows, I
think I read it might be bugged for that specific version and platform
combination. I will investigate that. However the intent was to not
change anything behaviorial for boost version < 1.61, so if a
1.54-version
11 matches
Mail list logo
