Issue 16688 - File Crashes OOo 1.1beta2
Summary: File Crashes OOo 1.1beta2
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of issue 16404
Alias: None
Product: Calc
Classification: Application
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 1.1 Beta2
Hardware: PC Linux, all
: P2 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: oc
QA Contact: issues@sc
URL:
Keywords: oooqa
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-07-10 21:39 UTC by rblackeagle
Modified: 2013-08-07 15:15 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Attachments
File that causes crash. (21.60 KB, application/octet-stream)
2003-07-10 21:41 UTC, rblackeagle 		no flags Details
stack dump from loading given document with ooo1.1beta2 under gdb (6.25 KB, text/plain)
2003-07-11 02:11 UTC, dankegel 		no flags Details
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description rblackeagle 2003-07-10 21:39:02 UTC 
The attached .stc file crashes OOo 1.1beta2 when loading with File > Template >
Edit.  I am running the linux version of OOo. Sorry -- I can't attach a file in
IssueZilla from "File an issue."  I'll try again.  The document is
marketing_plan_calc.stc from the OOExtras pages.
Comment 1 rblackeagle 2003-07-10 21:41:38 UTC 
Created attachment 7550 [details]
File that causes crash.
Comment 2 dankegel 2003-07-11 02:11:01 UTC 
Reproduced on red hat 8 with ooo1.1beta2.  Just passed the name of
the file on the commandline, answered 'no' when it asked if I wanted
to run the macros, and then bam, it aborted.   I'll attach a gdb stack
dump.
Comment 3 dankegel 2003-07-11 02:11:45 UTC 
Created attachment 7564 [details]
stack dump from loading given document with ooo1.1beta2 under gdb
Comment 4 oc 2003-07-11 11:37:25 UTC 
Duplicate to i16404, will be fixed in next build

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 16404 ***
Comment 5 oc 2003-07-11 11:37:47 UTC 
Closed because duplicate
Comment 6 rblackeagle 2003-07-11 15:21:11 UTC 
I've had the problem addressed in 16404 before and it was resolved in
1.1beta2.  This gives no such message and does not behave the same at
all.  Does the stack trace show it to be the same problem?