What happens if you ignore the assertion and carry on?
I had to do that for several assertions when debugging some security
problems - the problems I was working were higher priority.
On 1/9/2020 1:35 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
Hi,
To be clear the Assert is a different issue and needs more research.
The Assert claims a different object is to be used for top level objects. Since
the issue pops up on top-level object, right at start, I assume something is
not as it should be designed. The answers on the list suggest that the
knowledge is not present. So I need to do digging first before I can say what
to do. I think it may be worth open an issue and collect all informations there.
Thanks pat for the review support I appreciate it.
All the best
Peter
Am 9. Januar 2020 02:55:04 MEZ schrieb Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net>:
Hi -
See inline
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 8, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Peter Kovacs <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
Hello again,
hope I do not annoy anyone, with my questions.
I have looked deeper in the issue using OpenGrok.
Now the Issue seems pretty clear.
We have only the function signatures:
file: atkwrapper.hxx
85 AtkObject * atk_object_wrapper_new(
86 const ::com::sun::star::uno::Reference<
::com::sun::star::accessibility::XAccessible >& rxAccessible,
87 AtkObject* parent = NULL );
And we have the call for the Function just above this one
(file:atkwrapper.cxx):
AtkObject *
atk_object_wrapper_ref( const uno::Reference<
accessibility::XAccessible > &rxAccessible, bool create )
{
g_return_val_if_fail( rxAccessible.get() != NULL, NULL );
AtkObject *obj = ooo_wrapper_registry_get(rxAccessible);
if( obj )
{
g_object_ref( obj );
return obj;
}
if( create )
return atk_object_wrapper_new( rxAccessible );
return NULL;
}
So this is a bit confusing.
Anyone objects if I refactor the above code so we have only one
return statement at the end of the function? I think it is annoying and
you quickly miss the exitpoints of the function.
You are doing this to make a code quality tool quiet?
You will need to carefully understand how to add else clauses to the
code. If the functions is long it will be tedious. Bad clauses will
create very subtle bugs. I would want to build often ....
Such changes may also make these functions slightly slower.
If you do this then I think you’ll want someone to review the diff.
Apologies if I’m being negative or discouraging.
Best Regards,
Dave
All the Best
Peter
On 2020/01/07 21:27:44, Peter Kovacs <peter.kov...@posteo.de> wrote:
Hello all,
I have build OpenOffice from trunc with debug options. When started
I
get an Assertion Error.
Error: assertion failed!
From File /home/legine/AOO/main/vcl/unx/gtk/a11y/atkwrapper.cxx at
Line
874
Abort ? (Yes=abort / No=ignore / Cancel=core dump)
Code in Question is:
/* gail_focus_tracker remembers the focused object at the first
* parent in the hierarchy that is a Gtk+ widget, but at
the
time the
* event gets processed (at idle), it may be too late to
create the
* hierarchy, so doing it now ..
*/
uno::Reference< accessibility::XAccessible > xParent(
xContext->getAccessibleParent() );
/* The top-level objects should never be of this class
*/
OSL_ASSERT( xParent.is() );
The Wrapper is not an object right? Only a collection of functions
or do
I read this wrong?
Thx for some help.
All the Best
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
