> On Nov. 18, 2014, 6:45 p.m., rmudgett wrote: > > Ship It!
Corey: is this an issue in 12+ only because the code is different? Or did the test simply not fail in 11-? While I hope the former, from your comment [1] on the ticket I cannot deduce which it is. [1] "It appears that the issue I thought applied to 1.8/11 does not exist. So this issue applies to 12+ only." - wdoekes ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/4186/#review13806 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 18, 2014, 6:36 p.m., Corey Farrell wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/4186/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 18, 2014, 6:36 p.m.) > > > Review request for Asterisk Developers and rmudgett. > > > Bugs: ASTERISK-24535 > https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-24535 > > > Repository: Asterisk > > > Description > ------- > > ast_string_fields_copy relies on the fact that > __ast_string_field_release_active never previously zeroed pool->used, so > keeping the existing pointer was "ok". Setting each field to > __ast_string_field_empty after releasing the memory seems to resolve the > issue. > > > Diffs > ----- > > /branches/12/include/asterisk/stringfields.h 428167 > > Diff: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/4186/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Full testsuite against 12. I had 17 failures, but that is normal on my > system. I re-ran the 17 tests without this patch, they still failed. > > > Thanks, > > Corey Farrell > >
-- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
