1
µTasker general / Re: Can a Telnet socket be used to open a non-listening socket?
« on: March 23, 2018, 07:33:58 PM »
Hi Mark,
First off, I did not try to add the code you provided yet. I got side tracked on debugging more basic issues in the application's behavior like handling the multiple Listeners correctly and you didn't provide a reference to where it should be placed. Unfortunately I am now consistently getting an "undef_int()". This appears to be caused by a uMemcpy() in tcp.c which is being passed a ptrTo value of 0.
So 1st question is: I'm still using the old copy of tcp.c (uTasker-1.4.006?) with the newer copy of telnet.c (uTasker-1.4.013). I think I chose not to update due to the effort involved and reviewing the differences I thought it should be OK. What are your thoughts?
The second is could you have a look at the snap shots from the debugger I've attached and see if you can suggest a way to catch this that I haven't explored. I know the fault always happens on the same message type, but not every occurrence of the message. The message address which is passed looks OK. I'd appreciate you assistance since I'm not seeing issues with the data being passed.
Thanks,
Tom
First off, I did not try to add the code you provided yet. I got side tracked on debugging more basic issues in the application's behavior like handling the multiple Listeners correctly and you didn't provide a reference to where it should be placed. Unfortunately I am now consistently getting an "undef_int()". This appears to be caused by a uMemcpy() in tcp.c which is being passed a ptrTo value of 0.
So 1st question is: I'm still using the old copy of tcp.c (uTasker-1.4.006?) with the newer copy of telnet.c (uTasker-1.4.013). I think I chose not to update due to the effort involved and reviewing the differences I thought it should be OK. What are your thoughts?
The second is could you have a look at the snap shots from the debugger I've attached and see if you can suggest a way to catch this that I haven't explored. I know the fault always happens on the same message type, but not every occurrence of the message. The message address which is passed looks OK. I'd appreciate you assistance since I'm not seeing issues with the data being passed.
Thanks,
Tom