On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:03:50AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Martin" == Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Martin> OK, done, attached. Only I don't get it compiled because of
> Martin> some missing library, which I am not really in the mood to
> Martin> hunt down :-(
> "Martin" == Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> OK, done, attached. Only I don't get it compiled because of
Martin> some missing library, which I am not really in the mood to
Martin> hunt down :-(
Martin> I suppose it's OK to check this in anyway.
Yes.
JMarc
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 15:11 +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > Please fix also GToc.C
> >
> > How?
>
> It's basically the same fix (around line 128).
>
> Jürgen
OK, done, attached. Only I don't get it compiled because of some missing
library, which I am not really i
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 11:34 +0100, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> http://bugzilla.lyx.org/attachment.cgi?id=753&action=view
>
> Has anybody tested this, besides me? Can it go in?
>
> - Martin
I did have the crash, and I can now no longer reproduce it however hard
I try.
Dan
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Please fix also GToc.C
>
> How?
It's basically the same fix (around line 128).
Jürgen
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 01:44:00PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote:
> Georg Baum wrote:
>
> > It should IMO. Calling operator[] of an empty vector can only be wrong,
> > regardless of the used index. The fact that it does not always crash does
> > not make it better.
>
> Please fix also GToc.C
How?
- M
> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> Georg Baum wrote:
>> It should IMO. Calling operator[] of an empty vector can only be
>> wrong, regardless of the used index. The fact that it does not
>> always crash does not make it better.
Georg> Please fix also GToc.C
Agreed on
Georg Baum wrote:
> It should IMO. Calling operator[] of an empty vector can only be wrong,
> regardless of the used index. The fact that it does not always crash does
> not make it better.
Please fix also GToc.C
Georg
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> http://bugzilla.lyx.org/attachment.cgi?id=753&action=view
>
> Has anybody tested this, besides me?
Yes (right now), with the same result as Jürgen (no big surprise, the
compiler is similar: gcc 3.3.4 (pre 3.3.5 20040809))
> Can it go in?
It should IMO. Calling operator
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> http://bugzilla.lyx.org/attachment.cgi?id=753&action=view
>
> Has anybody tested this, besides me? Can it go in?
The patch is guaranteed to be an improvement as you are doing no more than
test whether it's safe to call string::operator[]. Please commit it.
--
Angus
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Has anybody tested this, besides me?
I can't really. I don't get the crash anyway.
But it looks like the right thing.
Jürgen
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/attachment.cgi?id=753&action=view
Has anybody tested this, besides me? Can it go in?
- Martin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
12 matches
Mail list logo