[DGD] xscanf

[Blain]

Is this right?:

DEBUG= -g -DDEBUG -ggdb3

---
Exception: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION at eip=0042402F
eax=00000000 ebx=00000010 ecx=00000000 edx=20111822 esi=00000000
edi=611D9DAE
ebp=0023B708 esp=0023B6D0
program=C:\Users\Blain\Data\mud\core\bin\dgd-1.5.5-debug, pid 5348, thread
main
cs=001B ds=0023 es=0023 fs=003B gs=0000 ss=0023
Stack trace:
Frame     Function  Args
0023B708  0042402F (0023BC58, 0023BC18, 00000008, 0023B734)
0023BB68  004702E8 (0023BC58, 00000001, 004AD0FC, 00000000)
0023BBC8  00427816 (0023BC58, 2011181D, 0023BC08, 00000000)
0023BCC8  0042897B (0023BDB8, 7FA20610, 00000000, 00000004)
0023BD28  00427E8F (0023BDB8, 2011B17A, 00000103, 7FA20600)
0023BE28  0042897B (0023BEF8, 7FA20638, 00000000, 00000005)
0023BE88  00427E8F (0023BEF8, 2011AD53, 0023BEC8, 0040BC66)
0023BF68  0042897B (0023C048, 7FA20638, 00000000, 00000005)
0023BFC8  00427E8F (0023C048, 2011ACE3, 0023C0B8, 00428A1A)
0023C0B8  0042897B (0023C198, 7FA20638, 00000000, 00000005)
0023C118  00427E8F (0023C198, 2011B206, 0023C148, 00485319)
0023C208  0042897B (0023C2E8, 7FA20638, 00000000, 00000005)
0023C268  00427E8F (0023C2E8, 2010F9E5, 0023C2B8, 200C11BC)
0023C358  0042897B (0023C588, 7FA20610, 00000000, 00000004)
0023C3A8  0042908F (0023C588, 7FA20638, 00000000, 2009DBEA)
0023C3E8  00467551 (0023C588, 00000002, 004ACB84, 0048C161)
End of stack trace (more stack frames may be present)


On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Raymond Jennings <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:

> If you haven't been screwing with DGD's source in "warranty voiding" ways,
> get a stack trace of the segfault and send it to dworkin.  Recompiling DGD
> with -ggdb3 is probably helpful.
>
> "DGD should never crash" (tm).
>
> Normally the only exception is an infinite recursion (which a finite stack
> rlimits should catch anyway) so if the ONLY thing changing is dgd's version
> number it's probably a bug in DGD.
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Blain <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I tested sscanf(str, str, arr...) on a few different versions of DGD and
> it
> > works on 1.5 and 1.5.1, but breaks on 1.5.2.  According to my differ, it
> > seems that sscanf() was rewritten between versions 1.5.1 and 1.5.2. :o)
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Blain <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Der.  Calling sscanf(str, str, arr...) is segfaulting.  I even tried it
> > > with a bare bones klib.  (Oh how I hate segfaults.)
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Blain <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks, Felix.  I don't feel so dirty now.
> > >>
> > >> I'm having a lot of fun coding lately. :)
> > >> On Aug 10, 2015 11:53 AM, "Felix A. Croes" <felix at dworkin.nl> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Blain <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > mixed *xscanf(string str, string format)
> > >>> > {
> > >>> >   array ret;
> > >>> >
> > >>> >   ret = allocate(50);
> > >>> >   sscanf(str, format, ret...);
> > >>> >   return ret[.. member(ret, null) - 1];
> > >>> > }
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Does this seem to be the best way to handle this?  I feel dirty
> > >>> arbitrarily
> > >>> > limiting it to 50.
> > >>>
> > >>> There is a hard limit of 128 arguments to any function, so you can
> use
> > >>> that as your constant and be sure that you are not imposing any
> > >>> additional
> > >>> limits.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Felix Croes
> > >>> ____________________________________________
> > >>> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > ____________________________________________
> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> >
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>