Access violation in Release only

On 11/06/2014 at 09:49, xxxxxxxx wrote:

Originally posted by xxxxxxxx

Using a matrix pointer instead of the object itself solved the problem for me.
[...]

That basically points either to a compiler bug (related to inlining your code) or (not so likely) a problem caused by excessive stack usage in the surrounding code - you can check the later by using the analyzer function of VS 2012; it will tell you if methods stack usage exceeds 16 kb (and how much it needs exactly) - although that doesn't catch problems caused by recursive calls using slightly less than 16 kb stack.

Best regards,

Wilfried

On 12/06/2014 at 02:40, xxxxxxxx wrote:

Thanks for that experty answer. I'm pretty sure not using so much stack space. I'm working with VS 2010. The previous version of my plugin was compiled with VS 2005 and this problem hasn't occured. So maybe it's really a compiler bug of VS 2010. I'll keep this issue in mind when updating VS.

On 12/06/2014 at 05:55, xxxxxxxx wrote:

May be important question is how do you call this function ?

> So maybe it's really a compiler bug of VS 2010.
Of course VS 2010 compiler is not the best one but usually compiler bugs are hidden in more exotic code fragments.

On 12/06/2014 at 07:10, xxxxxxxx wrote:

how do you call this function

Not sure what you mean. It's not called recursive. It's just that simple service function called from different major functions, that build up some data structures.

On 13/06/2014 at 03:09, xxxxxxxx wrote:

I mean do you call it like this ?

  
Matrix m;  
Matrix mp = Get_PointMatrix(&m, pcnt, index, up);  

On 13/06/2014 at 03:34, xxxxxxxx wrote:

No. The old version at the top of the page didn't need the pointer.

OLD:

Matrix m = Get_PointMatrix(pAdr, pcnt, index up);

NEW:

Matrix m;   
Get_PointMatrix(&m;, pAdr, pcnt, index up);

On 13/06/2014 at 07:48, xxxxxxxx wrote:

Why not use something like this then?
I think it is better to use reference as pointer.

  
    
    
    	Matrix m;
    	Get_PointMatrix(m, pAdr, pcnt, index, up);

  
    
    
    inline void Get_PointMatrix(Matrix &pMat, Vector pAdr[], LONG pcnt, LONG index,const Vector &up) 
    {
    	if(pAdr==nullptr) return;
    	Vector p1, p2; 
     
    	pMat.off = pAdr[index]; 
     
    	if (index < pcnt - 1) p2 = pAdr[index+1]; 
    	else p2 = pAdr[0]; 
     
    	if (index > 0) p1 = pAdr[index-1]; 
    	else p1 = pAdr[pcnt-1]; 
     
    	pMat.v3 = !(p2 - p1); 
    	pMat.v2 = up; 
    	pMat.v1 = -(pMat.v3 % pMat.v2); 
    }

On 13/06/2014 at 07:56, xxxxxxxx wrote:

Why? I prefer pointers. In your code, it's hard to distinguish references from objects.

On 13/06/2014 at 09:18, xxxxxxxx wrote:

May be because references are more restricted and this way more safe?
On can call the function with pointer as a return parameter in a couple of different ways.
Like this.

  
Get_PointMatrix(nullptr, pAdr, pcnt, index, up);  

in function like this but with Vector as first parameter, just swap two parameters and you get the problems.

  
Get_PointMatrix(pAdr, &m, pcnt, index, up);  

Of course this is off-topic now, and of course is "Geschmackssache"

On 13/06/2014 at 09:48, xxxxxxxx wrote:

And of course you always test the pointers to be not nullptr !?