You have tried to set a null level to root(2)

[Barak Simon <ba...@db.com>]

Hi Michael,

It seems this problem of "You have tried to set a null level to root" is happening
to us on gcc 3.2.2 while linking to the shared version of the logging (0.9.7) library (haven't tried the static version).

(The using library code is a bit complex, so I will need some time to try and generate it on simpler cases -- sorry about that;
it basically happens when trying to create a configurator, regardless of its type)

Since I do not know any #pragma hack to enforce static order for gcc, I wonder if there is anything we can do about it.
Around May you wrote in the mailing list that you may re-design the static initialisation part - how is that going, and are there any tips you
can provide us with to locally patch it for the interim until a formal release is out?

Many thanks,
Barak
________________________
Barak Simon
GED IT Core Platform
190 George St. Sydney, 2000
Deutsche Bank
Phone +61 2 925 85070
Fax      +61 2 925 95050


--

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.

Re: You have tried to set a null level to root(2)

[Michael CATANZARITI <mc...@free.fr>]

Hi Barak,

In fact for the moment, we don't have a real issue for the problem.
It's difficult because there are several aspects (it seems we have to find a
different solution for each static variable)
Christophe de Vienne seems to have some ideas.
If someone else has some suggestions, please send mails to log4cxx-dev lists.

Thank you,

Michael

Selon Barak Simon <ba...@db.com>:

> Hi Michael,
>
> It seems this problem of "You have tried to set a null level to root" is
> happening
> to us on gcc 3.2.2 while linking to the shared version of the logging (0.9.7)
> library (haven't tried the static version).
>
> (The using library code is a bit complex, so I will need some time to try and
> generate it on simpler cases -- sorry about that;
> it basically happens when trying to create a configurator, regardless of its
> type)
>
> Since I do not know any #pragma hack to enforce static order for gcc, I
> wonder if there is anything we can do about it.
> Around May you wrote in the mailing list that you may re-design the static
> initialisation part - how is that going, and are there any tips you
> can provide us with to locally patch it for the interim until a formal
> release is out?
>
> Many thanks,
> Barak
> ________________________
> Barak Simon
> GED IT Core Platform
> 190 George St. Sydney, 2000
> Deutsche Bank
> Phone +61 2 925 85070
> Fax      +61 2 925 95050
>
>
> --
>
> This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you
> are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please
> notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized
> copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is
> strictly forbidden.
>
>
>