Re: [Libreoffice] two assertions raised and a failed database query

On Sun, 2011-08-07 at 11:32 -0400, Terrence Enger wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am asking here about a couple of raised assertions and a
> failed database query.  Maybe there is a connection, but
> maybe not.
>
> My system is ubuntu-natty (11.04), and I did a build with
> configuration parameters
>     --disable-mozilla --enable-symbols --enable-dbgutil
>     --enable-crashdump --disable-build-mozilla
>     --without-junit
> and I am submitting a query "select * from AA6411" to a
> server running DB2/400.  This table is described in bug
> 34309 "error on importing a timestamp field from db2 via
> ODBC" <https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34309>.

*assuming* I'm looking at the right code for the those timestamps. The
conversion from LibO's fraction of a second to the sql one looks ok, but
the conversion from the SQL one to the LibO one looks odd on the face of
it. I suppose we won't get lucky here and the patch I attached to that
bug makes any difference to the core issue of "Strange conversion on a
time-stamp field" ?

> (*) Up to this point, the assertion "operator delete
>     mismatch" at operators_new_delete.cxx at Line 96 has
>     been raised five times.  (I have reason to believe that
>     the problem is in the IBM-supplied ODBC driver.
>     Openoffice.org declared the bug WONTFIX, and I concur.)

I wonder. You can put a breakpoint at
sal/cpprt/operators_new_delete.cxx:96 and get some backtraces from the
deletes to see where they are coming from. Which bugid got closed as
WONTFIX btw ?


> Questions arising ...
>
> (*) Are raised assertions (except this particular operator
>     delete mismatch, of course) grounds for submitting a bug
>     report?  Always so?  I presume a backtrace would be
>     useful.  What else?

What's worthwhile if you can practically achieve it is to install
valgrind, export VALGRIND=memcheck and then try your tests. i.e. rule in
or out a generic bug which valgrind can find.

C.