[drats_users] unknown crash

[Nate Duehr]

Hmm, I think the sniffer was enabled.  I'll check.  That might be it.

It was up probably something like 24 hours.  Best I have is that it was
"down Wednesday night when I tried" from another local user.  It was
launched Tuesday night.

Perhaps that's a new wishlist item?  Timestamps in the logs?  :-)  Heh
heh.

Nate WY0X

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:46:30 -0700, "Dan Smith" <dsmith at danplanet.com>
said:
> > Do you see anything that would lead you to any ideas as to why a
> > long-running copy would have died here?
> 
> Unfortunately, there are a number of issues with GTK on windows
> relating to threads.  They're all things that shouldn't be fatal,
> given the appropriate amount of care, but that are subtle enough to be
> really hard to find.
> 
> The long-term stability of D-RATS on Windows varies from time to time,
> which is something I'm very unhappy about and spend a lot of time
> trying to get correct.  Being a cross-platform app, things like this
> are somewhat inevitable as part of the process.  Not that it's an
> excuse, but just one of those things.  I know surprisingly little
> about the Windows environment, which increases the difficulty level.
> 
> > C:\Program Files\D-RATS-Beta\library.zip\d_rats\mainapp.py:633: GtkWarning: gtk_list_store_get_value: assertion `VALID_ITER (iter, list_store)' failed
> > Received block 0:0 for session `chat'
> > C:\Program Files\D-RATS-Beta\library.zip\d_rats\mainapp.py:633: Warning: g_object_set_property: assertion `G_IS_VALUE (value)' failed
> > Got chat frame: DDT2+: 0:1:0 CQCQCQ->CQCQCQ (...[0])
> > Received block 0:0 for session `chat'
> > C:\Program Files\D-RATS-Beta\library.zip\d_rats\mainapp.py:633: Warning: g_value_unset: assertion `G_IS_VALUE (value)' failed
> > C:\Program Files\D-RATS-Beta\library.zip\d_rats\ui\main_events.py:224: GtkWarning: gtk_tree_model_filter_get_value: assertion `GTK_TREE_MODEL_FILTER (model)->priv->stamp == iter->stamp' failed
> 
> These warnings aren't normal and may very well be related to the
> issue, especially given that they're at the end of the log.  They're
> also not very helpful because they're C warnings from a level below
> us.  I'll take a look later today to see if I can think of any thing
> related to them.
> 
> Approximately how long had it been running?  I assume the sniffer was
> not enabled, correct?
> 
> -- 
> Dan Smith
> dsmith#danplanet.com, s/#/@/
> www.danplanet.com
> KK7DS
> _______________________________________________
> drats_users mailing list
> drats_users at lists.danplanet.com
> http://lists.danplanet.com/mailman/listinfo/drats_users
--
  Nate Duehr
  nate at natetech.com