Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 09:42:36AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >> Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: >> >> > I haven't seen any interest in >> > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1771 >> >> My take on this (if nobody is going to protest in the next few hours) is >> to revert the flawed fix. > > I think that's entirely reasonable. IMO, if there's no clear > offer of a fix within 48 hours of a bad commit, we should revert > it. > >> The other critical bug appears to be related with multithreading, and I >> consider it likely, given its random appearance, that it will mainly >> affect multicore systems. I don't have such a one. > > I thought lilypond was single-threaded? Or is the C++ stuff > single-threaded, but the guile stuff multi-threaded? I mean, I > know that functional programming is great for multi-threaded work > in general, but I didn't think that we used it as such.
Guile explicitly differentiates functions "map" and "map-in-order". In theory, it would be free to evaluate "map" in multiple threads. I have no indication that it does so and would be quite surprised if they indeed had as fine-grained threading as that. But this bug has been reported as occuring non-deterministically even in successive runs on the same machine, and there are rather few things that can introduce such stochastic behavior (another possibility would be timer-triggered garbage collection). -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
