Crashes with update to R15 API
-
On 10/02/2014 at 05:45, xxxxxxxx wrote:
User Information:
Cinema 4D Version: R15
Platform: Windows ; Mac OSX ;
Language(s) : C++ ;---------
This code is crashing Cinema 4D in R15 only (no problems from R10 to R14) :// GreeblerObj.SplitSelection // - Split PolygonSelection off into new Object //*---------------------------------------------------------------------------* PolygonObject* GreeblerObj::SplitSelection(BaseObject* op) //*---------------------------------------------------------------------------* { ModelingCommandData gmcd; gmcd.doc = NULL; gmcd.bc = NULL; gmcd.mode = MODELINGCOMMANDMODE_POLYGONSELECTION; gmcd.flags = MODELINGCOMMANDFLAGS_0; gmcd.op = op; // Split selected polygons (tops) into new object if (!(SendModelingCommand(MCOMMAND_SPLIT, gmcd) && gmcd.result)) return NULL; PolygonObject* top = ToPoly(gmcd.result->GetIndex(0L)); AtomArray::Free(gmcd.result); if (!top) return NULL; // Add to object iarray iarray->Append(top); return top; }The bugreport goes like this:
Exception { ExceptionNumber = 0xC0000005 ExceptionText = "ACCESS_VIOLATION" Address = 0x00007FF6C6C53365 Thread = 3972 Last_Error = 0x00000006 } Call_Stacks { Call_Stack_Thread_3972 { CINEMA 4D 64 Bit.exe: 00007FF6C6C53365 modeling.cdl64: 00007FFE308CD7E8 CINEMA 4D 64 Bit.exe: 00007FF6C608FD4E CINEMA 4D 64 Bit.exe: 00007FF6C608F9A8 CINEMA 4D 64 Bit.exe: 00007FF6C5C60E88 CINEMA 4D 64 Bit.exe: 00007FF6C5CDDBD9 modeling.cdl64: 00007FFE30996020 modeling.cdl64: 00007FFE306FC19B Greebler.cdl64: 00007FFE2CC1A625 GreeblerObj::SplitSelection Greebler.cdl64: 00007FFE2CC1780B GreeblerObj::PrepareThreads Greebler.cdl64: 00007FFE2CC17112 GreeblerObj::Greeble_Mesh Greebler.cdl64: 00007FFE2CC1602A GreeblerObj::Greeble_Tag Greebler.cdl64: 00007FFE2CC1590F GreeblerObj::Generate Greebler.cdl64: 00007FFE2CC214A0 GreeblerObj::GetVirtualObjectsop and iarray are (or had better be) valid!
-
On 10/02/2014 at 10:12, xxxxxxxx wrote:
Not sure but may be doc need to be not NULL too ?
gmcd.doc = doc; -
On 11/02/2014 at 04:42, xxxxxxxx wrote:
I have considered that, but there is no mention of a change requiring a document despite it having never needed one before. Let's try it and see what happens.
