Neil Puttock <n.putt...@gmail.com> writes: > 2009/12/3 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > >> I keep asking for the testing, with little success so far. I still >> don't know whether the changes from a week ago solve the memory >> leak/corruption problem reported with a previous version. > > Thanks, the latest patchset works fine (see attached test results), > and the annoying `Parsed object should be dead' warnings have gone.
Good. Very good. I think that there may be a _functional_ difference in comparison to the original approach: I suspect you now need to define your markups at top file level with regard to modules, whereas previously it was ok to do it anywhere in a subordinate module/scope as well. But I think that this is not a serious drawback. That means that I can go ahead seriously with cleanup and documentation work. >> I might have mentioned that I have not been able to verify the >> original report, since it worked and I got no recipe to make it fail >> in the reported way. > > I can't give you a recipe to make it fail on your system. I mentioned > what caused the problems on my system, but I can't give you any more > info than I've already provided. > > To recap: > > I build the lilypond binary: > > ./autogen.sh --disable-optimising That's what I have used as well. > make -j2 > make install Apart from -j2, same here. I have a single processor machine. Maybe the problem occurs only when multithreading? Is Lilypond multithreaded? > Regression testing: > > make test-clean > make -j2 CPU_COUNT=2 test-baseline > > apply patch > > make -j2 CPU_COUNT=2 check > > The previous patch which failed only worked without -j2 on my system, > but spat out memory leaks even on blank files. Wow. Nothing here. I have to admit that I _do_ get two undead smob warnings right after writing out internals.texi. However, I get them with or without my patch. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
