Ben Reser wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 07:44:38PM +0100, SteveKing wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>During the last two days, I received four crashreports from TSVN users.
>>The crashreport showed a crash (EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION) in
>>libsvn_wc/status.c line 978. (Always referring to the 1.1.1 tag!)
>>
>>The lines in question:
>> if (parent_status
>> && (parent_status->text_status != svn_wc_status_unversioned)
>> && (parent_status->text_status != svn_wc_status_deleted)
>> && (parent_status->text_status != svn_wc_status_missing)
>> && (parent_status->text_status != svn_wc_status_obstructed)
>> && (parent_status->entry->kind == svn_node_dir)
>> && (eb->descend || (! pb)))
>> {
>>
>>Please check the second last line here:
>> && (parent_status->entry->kind == svn_node_dir)
>>
>>Obviously, the
>>parent_status->entry
>>is NULL, which can be NULL for non-versioned items (AFAIR).
>
>
> Uhh yeah but if something is unversioned the second line of that if
> statement should be being hit.
You're forgetting svn_wc_status_none here. That's not checked, and
that's a status which is also returned for unversioned items (at least
sometimes).
> So reasonably the real question here is why is something that is
> unversioned not getting svn_wc_status_unversioned? Fixing that may fix
> other bugs. Applying your workaround doesn't improve correctness, it
> simply stops your crash.
Maybe you can explain the difference of
svn_wc_status_unversioned
and
svn_wc_status_none
to me. I've read the API-docs but that's not really mentioned. At least
I haven't found an explanation why there are two statuses for (IMHO) the
same.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 5 21:02:04 2004