fix for #168

[mklauser]

The lines of code that caused the error in tardis/cmontecarlo.c are removed. Since these lines are only used for debugging, there should be no side effect on other parts of the code.

[orbitfold]

How about checking if the array index is valid and only execute those lines then?
Išsiųsta BlackBerry® paštu iš Bitės

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael notifications@github.com
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:19:17
To: tardis-sn/tardistardis@noreply.github.com
Reply-To: tardis-sn/tardis reply@reply.github.com
Subject: [tardis] fix for #168 (#169)

The lines of code that caused the error in tardis/cmontecarlo.c are removed. Since these lines are only used for debugging, there should be no side effect on other parts of the code.
You can merge this Pull Request by running:

git pull https://github.com/mklauser/tardis fix_168

Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:

#169

-- Commit Summary --

• fix for Segmentation fault in the Monte Carlo Main Loop from TARDIS(master) #168

-- File Changes --

M tardis/cmontecarlo.c (4)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/tardis-sn/tardis/pull/169.patch
https://github.com/tardis-sn/tardis/pull/169.diff

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#169

[mklauser]

Checking the array index is also a way to go. However, in my opinion, this is more expensive, and (I think) we don't need this value in compute_distance2line at all.

[orbitfold]

Maybe move it to the error reporting if clause.
Išsiųsta BlackBerry® paštu iš Bitės

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael notifications@github.com
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:42:00
To: tardis-sn/tardistardis@noreply.github.com
Reply-To: tardis-sn/tardis reply@reply.github.com
Cc: Vytautas Jancauskasunaudio@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [tardis] fix for #168 (#169)

Checking the array index is also a way to go. However, in my opinion, this is more expensive, and (I think) we don't need this value here at all.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#169 (comment)

[wkerzendorf]

Great @mklauser! I agree with @orbitfold to movie it to the error reporting if clause. I think it would also be great to get some tests going there, which should be relatively easy.

[wkerzendorf]

@mklauser can you move the offending lines to the error clause and rebase this PR (to master that was just fixed). Then we can merge this.

[wkerzendorf]

@mklauser What's going on with this? Can you fix it so we can merge this.

[wkerzendorf]

move line 123-124 -> 135, 136

[wkerzendorf]

@mklauser looks good - merging