X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
	bh=O6dzrVzZUJdp27G2BMgFGJmyadl0ol2i/dGuq4nesHI=;
	b=j2BWOvVOSbWUUM4B4ZEgTR4igBzkSPoL5oRQsfZo1eIu9kjUn8DOS6WBzYGa1php4S
	WDoYb2AITtyxIioT8X5pIqiBE3VuMD9HtM+b2F8TBg3pUwUn2+Mm6frh2GZ2yua6cUVr
	6bCeHx5Pt02ujpZ4xkyAjcCNp3xw7GhIjY25X8nDk++JmNYiSn79nX451BAk8oNgZfSl
	id4qCk/CDGeTaPm7r5pAGqM03sI5ljuXCy/xHdrM4muzW2sJ41vgvdaJfal/wh1zlOln
	shTo1Haa0e6WgV9EDpTzNptdC63Qgb8+klQaN+97FH7iw7rgZAauDF8VMvBjH49unU3X
	p6DQ==
MIME-Version:	1.0
Date:	Sat, 22 Sep 2012 19:38:44 -0400
Message-ID:	<CACPio-5O3uTSsEwogjeR-tnPWtVnOEoykX7KqAGOhu8bwqRQLw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	[geda-user] g_strcasecmp - bad refdes/pinlabel?
From:	Nathan Stewart <therealnathanstewart AT gmail DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

I'm still trying to reduce my problem down to the simplest thing that
doesn't work, but I have a hierarchical schematic which I can descend
into once, but once I pop back up, attempting to descend into it again
crashes the thread opening the schematic with the following error:

(gschem:6087): GLib-CRITICAL **: g_strcasecmp: assertion `s2 != NULL' failed

Perhaps unrelated, perhaps not - the netlister chokes the io pins in
the schematic, saying:
Missing I/O symbol with refdes [Out] inside schematic for symbol [S1]
Missing I/O symbol with refdes [In] inside schematic for symbol [S1]

When there most certainly are pins with the correct refdes.

The dummy schematic I use for layout can descend into this symbol
repeatedly with no issues, and the main schematic can descend into
other schematics without problems. Also interesting is that renaming
the pins/refdes seems to have cured the problem. Even renamed to the
original name it works. Normally at this polnt I'd chalk it up to
random wierdness and move on because I'm back in business - but the
thing about working the first time, and not working on subsequent
tries is worrisome, as is the fact that a different top level schem
had no problems with the subschem in the first place. I attempted to
take a look with gdb - but the thread it was in had already exited.

Nathan

- Raw text -