Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-ai: August 2004:
[freeciv-ai] Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#9886) better AI unit assert

[freeciv-ai] Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#9886) better AI unit assert

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: per@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [freeciv-ai] Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#9886) better AI unit assert
From: "Jason Short" <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:31:31 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: >

Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> <URL: >
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Jason Short wrote:
>>>>But can't you get this information from the backtrace anyway?
>>>Err, no. That's the _point_. The role is usually set much earlier than the
>>>assert. Sometimes in the turn before or several turns earlier (for
>>Um, what? It's still in the unit struct which is easily visible.
>>Although I misspoke when I said "from the backtrace", I meant "in the
> Oh. So you suggest that I keep the part of the patch that adds this info
> to the unit struct, but drop the special assert? That's not a dumb idea.
> It makes the patch only half as ugly.

You mean the ai_role_file and ai_role_line data?  That could work...

However ai_role_file should be a const char * not a char[MAX_LEN_NAME].


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]