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=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references
	:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to
	:user-agent;
	bh=LrNG5Oe20PZfsFHhXzWIvT6Xparrop6bbeT8Ia8V8eY=;
	b=AFHXFV2OTMibKT4r3ZJq7K1cns6Jc85QZYBlB1rj4EotfmQjYoGxLMECGCwiHPCJ0E
	f4Pw9VhSlvzuWuPgHf3P30rzflbxKmSJLyleGt0eu0LAw+aSumDjbhUKVrWXO3nL8vw4
	2AnjHuEhfbrxfnWOfSB6+CBZLHiJuR78FjtZwbB9lPIRbFGKbVUNqFN8rpO8XbxD25vQ
	A5tvFEvFswjGoAqwyegnMWvfKypKKj2S/UAeW81fawUWPgvNvsZB0NjD09eBj73bMFIS
	ZtS7PzxorsjU5e0FU9s1dYV+HXrngK5DAut4XDxfiTjF+kxX5dBRyVwDHRw4AuESZVaS
	Y47w==
Date:	Fri, 4 May 2012 00:22:51 +0400
From:	Vladimir Zhbanov <vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Re: crash connecting to nets
Message-ID:	<20120503202251.GB2144@localhost.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References:	<CACPio-7BaZJ5ZirPVEjHEfWbXjC5gENX6rhJcmfdw0KcCL7WBw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CACPio-5JEEoaqFcHHmRy2+yPqjLOR98G7gyxrzrTNpWLHzR-ew AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAMvDHVD01WBCOMgZebkJS9uWgjHZQa5VRrQ7VFHR-eCsyCvCYQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CACPio-6fSgp8MyXVPzaT7E2rcCf6rDCNp9+xiQ-FhD392jByWA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<CACPio-6fSgp8MyXVPzaT7E2rcCf6rDCNp9+xiQ-FhD392jByWA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:28:12AM -0400, Nathan Stewart wrote:
> Ok, not sure if this is a bug so much as an ungraceful failure. I was
> trying to use it incorrectly.
> 
> I couldn't recreate the problem initially either, when I set out to
> create the simplest possible test case. It turns out that I had used
> subcomponents in my symbol, made them graphical, but had hooked them
> up with nets (which I also attempted to mark as graphical at the same
> time - not sure if nets can be graphical)
> 
> The problem occurs when connecting to a NET in a symbol. In my test
> case, I created a sub component, added a net to one of the pins. In
> this case, connecting to either end of the NET blows up. Then I
> disconnected the NET from the PIN, but left it in. Now I can connect
> to the PIN. I could also connect to one end of the NET, but not the
> other.
> 
> Also interesting when the debugger stops here is that j,k are
> optimized out, even though the code path is going to attempt to index
> using them into the null pointer, but I try not to read too much into
> what the debugger thinks the optimizer has done. (Arguing with the
> compiler is like arguing with your wife. You're rarely right, but even
> when you are, it doesn't matter - you're not getting anywhere until
> you make it happy.)
> 
> 

I tried this and found that it happens exactly as you said.
This is really a bug. And would be nice if you'd send a bug
report of it.

The issue is that symbols and schematics are essentially the
same (I mean their file structure). However, nets in symbols
are intended only to leave a possibility to create and add
to your design a beforehand created part of schematic using
"Include component as individual objects" from "Select
Component..." dialog. (See
http://wiki.geda-project.org/geda:faq-gschem#can_my_local_library_cover_frequently_needed_sub_circuits).
Otherwise your symbol (representing a component or a
subcircuit) should not contain nets (if you're using
subcircuits their symbols cannot contain nets, only their
sub schematics should contain them, see
http://wiki.geda-project.org/geda:file_format_spec#net).

Anyway, in a case of an error (as in your case) a segfault
should not happen. An error message should pop up instead.
Therefore it is a reason to file a bug report.

-- 
A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read
text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: The lost context.
Q: What makes top-posted replies harder to read than
bottom-posted?

A: Yes.
Q: Should I trim down the quoted part of an email to
which I'm replying?

http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html

-- 
VZh
http://vzhbanov.byethost33.com

- Raw text -