[portej05]

Whilst testing out the BP2 intro movie ( ) with the latest trunk, it crashes with the following error:

Code: [Select]

Unknown error.

In sexpression: ( when
   ( true )
   ( set-camera-position 1011 361 17394 )
   ( set-camera-target
      "Nelson"
      "Fighterbay"
   )
)
(Error appears to be: Fighterbay)
ntdll.dll! ZwWaitForSingleObject + 21 bytes
kernel32.dll! WaitForSingleObjectEx + 67 bytes
kernel32.dll! WaitForSingleObject + 18 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! SCP_DumpStack + 294 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! Error + 229 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! post_process_mission + 1577 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! parse_mission + 1531 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! parse_main + 449 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! mission_load + 215 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! game_start_mission + 189 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! game_enter_state + 482 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! gameseq_set_state + 310 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! game_process_event + 242 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! gameseq_process_events + 152 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! game_main + 745 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! WinMain + 330 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! __tmainCRTStartup + 358 bytes
fs2_open_3_6_11d.exe! WinMainCRTStartup + 15 bytes
kernel32.dll! BaseThreadInitThunk + 18 bytes
ntdll.dll! RtlInitializeExceptionChain + 99 bytes
ntdll.dll! RtlInitializeExceptionChain + 54 bytes

It's pulling the UNKNOWN_ERROR value from line 1772 of sexp.cpp while checking the sexps in post_process_mission.
How it's getting there, I don't know
I haven't quite figured out how to make a much smaller case, but if I do figure out how, I'll post it here.

[Zacam]

Take

Code: [Select]

return SEXP_CHECK_UNKNOWN_ERROR; // just in case of something going wrong - it won't trickle down
and replace it with:

Code: [Select]

break;

Don't bother putting the SEXP_CHECK back in.

[portej05]

Mantis'd: #2066

[Goober5000]

Take

Code: [Select]

return SEXP_CHECK_UNKNOWN_ERROR; // just in case of something going wrong - it won't trickle down
and replace it with:

Code: [Select]

break;

Don't bother putting the SEXP_CHECK back in.

I thought you said that the return statement was throwing an unreachable code warning?

[Zacam]

It is, as conditions for it's check no longer exist. Hence changing the line back to the break; it originally was.

But that has already been done via commit 5713. Just adding this for thread closure.

Also, for those worrying about the Test Build I released here, while it is based on 5712 it does not have the reported problem. I fixed the issue a little differently than goober did (in fact, 5713 watches what I did) so that is a working 5712-based build.

[The E]

I think I'll close this, then.