Re: SIGSEGV @ socket-impl-gio.cc:502 (abort_flag)

I am not specifically familiar with this code, but since no one else  
has replied... I don't believe that this is duplicate.

Firstly, the if statement block that you commented out occurs within  
the else clause of the if structure which first checks for  
_abort_flag.  This means that logically, _abort_flag must *not* be set  
in order to ever enter the else block, and therefore, if it were a  
duplicate/redundant check, then _abort_flag would never be set when  
checked the second time (where you commented it out).  The fact that  
commenting it out caused a change in behavior for you proves that it  
is possible for _abort_flag to not be set in the first test, but to be  
set in the second. Presumably, this is because either/both of  
do_read() or do_write() may set _abort_flag (in the else block, above  
your "duplicate" if).  I expect your actual problem lies elsewhere  
(perhaps within the on_socket_abort() call).

-Nathanael

On Aug 21, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Heinrich Müller wrote:

> OS: 64 bit ubuntu jaunty 9.04, latest version from SVN.
>
> code snippet //
>
> /if (_abort_flag)
> {
>   _listener->on_socket_abort (this);
> }
> else if (!(cond & (G_IO_IN | G_IO_OUT)))
> {
>   _listener->on_socket_error (this);
> }
> else // G_IO_IN or G_IO_OUT
> {
>   const DoResult result = (cond & G_IO_IN) ? do_read () : do_write ();
>   /*  if (_abort_flag)        _listener->on_socket_abort (this);
>   else*/ if (result == IO_ERR)   _listener->on_socket_error (this);
>   else if (result == IO_READ)  set_watch_mode (READ_NOW);
>   else if (result == IO_WRITE) set_watch_mode (WRITE_NOW);
> }/
>
>
> //
>
> isn't the second appearance of abort_flag a dupe? it was already  
> checked before by the first "if" branch...
> i commented that and got no errors so far (opposed to random  
> segfaults before) :D
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pan-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-devel