* Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010307 16:49]:
> > "Baruch" == Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Baruch> This will provide the needed info that the exit is from an
> Baruch> assert without going through the hoops of using a macro to
> Baruch> provide the line and file.
>
> "Baruch" == Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Baruch> This will provide the needed info that the exit is from an
Baruch> assert without going through the hoops of using a macro to
Baruch> provide the line and file.
It seems to me that it says "aborted" instead of "segmentation fault"
* Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010307 16:28]:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On 7 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> |
> | > Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > | Hello,
> | > |
> | > | I believe we should add a printing to the Assert definition
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
> Then JOhn should have provided a backtrace as well which would have shown
> immediately that it was an Assert and where.
>
> Allan. (ARRae)
I didn't see the point in this case, he had to repeat it anyway to check his
fix fixed it.
john
--
"Faced with th
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Baruch Even wrote:
> Learning that it was a core dump doesn't help me to understand it.
> Knowing it's an assert that failed will give me more clues to decipher
> the reason.
Then JOhn should have provided a backtrace as well which would have shown
immediately that it was an A
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 7 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | Hello,
| > |
| > | I believe we should add a printing to the Assert definition so that it
| > | will be obvious when a core dump is caused by some assert,
* Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010307 14:59]:
> Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Hello,
> |
> | I believe we should add a printing to the Assert definition so that it
> | will be obvious when a core dump is caused by some assert, it would be
> | great if it included the
On 7 Mar 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Hello,
> |
> | I believe we should add a printing to the Assert definition so that it
> | will be obvious when a core dump is caused by some assert, it would be
> | great if it included the line and file o
Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hello,
|
| I believe we should add a printing to the Assert definition so that it
| will be obvious when a core dump is caused by some assert, it would be
| great if it included the line and file of the assert, and it would be
| best if it printed the as
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Baruch Even wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I believe we should add a printing to the Assert definition so that it
> will be obvious when a core dump is caused by some assert, it would be
> great if it included the line and file of the assert, and it would be
> best if it printed the ass
Hello,
I believe we should add a printing to the Assert definition so that it
will be obvious when a core dump is caused by some assert, it would be
great if it included the line and file of the assert, and it would be
best if it printed the assert condition itself, but I do not know how to
achie
11 matches
Mail list logo