[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #699: v.buffer segfault: in
Vect_get_isle_points()
GRASS GIS
trac at osgeo.org
Sun Apr 3 10:30:07 EDT 2011
#699: v.buffer segfault: in Vect_get_isle_points()
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: neteler | Owner: grass-dev@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.0.0
Component: Vector | Version: 6.4.0 RCs
Keywords: v.buffer | Platform: All
Cpu: All |
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Comment(by mmetz):
Replying to [comment:20 mlennert]:
> Replying to [comment:19 mmetz]:
> > The most serious bug I am aware of was that cleaning would not work
with the buffer column option, i.e. if different lines/areas are buffered
with different distances. This has been fixed in v.buffer2, but the
implementation in vbuffer2 is both using lots of memory and is very slow.
> [snip]
> > Unfortunately, everything became a bit more complicated in order to
support a buffer column with individual buffering distances and in order
to handle some special cases.
>
> Just to make sure I understand: so your corrected version of v.buffer
still contains a bug for buffer columns ? Any idea how this bug could be
solved ? Or are you pleading for having a fast v.buffer without buffer
column and maybe an option v.buffer.column based on v.buffer2 which
provides a buffer column option, but runs slower ?
>
Sorry for being unclear: the buffer column option is working just fine in
v.buffer. I transferred the method of v.buffer2 to v.buffer and optimized
the method.
In my tests, the results of v.buffer/v.parallel are more accurate than
v.buffer2/v.parallel2 (granted that v.buffer2/v.parallel2 do not bomb
out); therefore I would plead to replace v.buffer2/v.parallel2 with
v.buffer/v.parallel.
Markus M
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/699#comment:21>
GRASS GIS <http://grass.osgeo.org>
More information about the grass-dev
mailing list