[vlc-devel] win32 mozilla plug-in crash in every 1.1 build from nightly.videolan.org

[Michael A. Puls II]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:24:32 -0400, Jean-Paul Saman <jpsaman at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Michael A. Puls II  
> <shadow2531 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I mentioned on IRC a while ago that the mozilla plug-in in the VLC 1.1  
>> git
>> win32 binaries from http://nightly.videolan.org/ crashes on WinXP (PIII)
>> with:
>>
>> Microsoft VisualC++ Runtime Library
>>
>> The application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual
>> way. Please contact the application's support team for more information.
>>
>> I tried with windbg to see what the problem is, but didn't figure out
>> anything. All I could tell is that the crash happens right after the  
>> plug-in
>> loads all the modules.
>>
>> Well, I've been checking the builds all the time and the problem is  
>> still
>> there in each build. <
>> http://nightly.videolan.org/build/win32/trunk-20090910-2205/vlc-1.1.0-git-20090910-2205-win32.exe>
>> for example.
>>
>> I did find one extra thing just now. <embed  
>> type="application/x-vlc-plugin"
>> src="" width="400" height="400"> will cause the crash, but removing  
>> src=""
>> stops it from crashing.
>>
>> Another way to make it crash is to just load a media file in the address
>> field that invokes the plug-in.
>>
>> It crashes in Firefox, Safari and Opera. The 1.0.x builds work fine  
>> though.
>>
>> Are the 1.1 binaries built for a certain processor or something or do  
>> they
>> require some runtime libs that I don't have?
>>
>
> The 1.1 binaries are development releases and might be unstable.

Yes, understood.

> Currently
> the libvlc API in 1.1 is in flux and this breaks the webplugins for the
> development releases. Once the libvlc API stabilizes a bit more the
> webplugins will be updated to take advantage of the revamped libvlc API.
> Untill then the webplugins might be unstable.

O.K.

> If you need a stable webplugin then I advice to use the official releases
> 1.0.x binaries.

I'm fine with unstable. It's just completely unusable and not even  
suitable for testing. This is even fine. It's just been like that for a  
long time and wanted to make sure it's actually known.

Thanks

-- 
Michael