Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: February 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2370) Path finding
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2370) Path finding

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2370) Path finding
From: "Gregory Berkolaiko via RT" <rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 04:24:20 -0800
Reply-to: rt.freeciv.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Per,

By the sound of it, you done a grand job.  

I am baffled by why attribute stuff is affected by pf.
I'll look at the code and do some more cleaning later today.

G.



On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Per I. Mathisen via RT wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Raimar Falke via RT wrote:
> > Per wants to commit PF. Per: you have to puzzle the PF together with
> > Gregorys code from the last mail above and the attached diff which
> > contains the common part and the test case. You want to merge the
> > common part with Gregorys code.
> 
> I've merged the code you sent and moved it into aicore. Stripped the
> _identical_ pqueue implementation from airgoto.c and path_finding_gb.c,
> and moved it into a separate file. Removed path_finding_pf, and made the
> gb code default.  Stripped away dead code. Fixed bad style.
> 
> Now I'm wondering, didn't you ever write any code which actually made path
> finding work inside the game?
> 
> There's a lot of duplicate functions, those got to go. Both old client and
> server goto should be replaced with the new path finding as it is
> committed; I don't want to keep around duplicate goto data structures and
> functions.
> 
> The client code barfs with this error: civclient: attribute.c:64:
> attribute_init: Assertion `attribute_hash == ((void *)0)' failed.
> 
> I removed the test code, and didn't test result, other than that the
> server still works. I did not attempt to fix anything, nor ensure that
> this result is working. I am also unsure if the path_tools.c (was
> path_finding_tools.c) part is any longer necessary.
> 
> That is because it was at this point I pretty much gave up. Sorry, the two
> of you got to sort out this mess. It will take me at least 10x the time to
> do so, since I don't know the code, and I don't know _whose_ code this or
> that function belongs to.
> 
>   - Per
> 
> 




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