Fixing segfault in SoftSdfParser #345
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
👍 Waiting to pass build tests. |
jslee02
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 6, 2015
Fixing segfault in SoftSdfParser
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The atlasSimbicon app is failing in master because of a segfault in the SoftSdfParser. It tries to call "getTransform()" on a BodyNode that does not yet have a parent joint, and this is guaranteed to result in a segfault, because the parent joint is strictly responsible for the relative transform of its child BodyNode. The parser has been corrected to set the transform-from-parent of the FreeJoint according to the initial transform as read by the SdfParser. However, we might want to consider setting that transform to Identity and using the initial transform to set the initial joint values of the FreeJoint. Either way works, but one might be semantically preferable over the other.
I also modified the warning message for the soft boxes to be a bit more clear.