On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 07:12:53AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Keith OHara <[email protected]> writes: > > > Issue 1809 is an interesting test of this policy. `make test` > > sometimes crashes for some programmers, making it very hard for them > > to contribute, but it crashes in the Guile garbage collection, so we > > might be powerless to resolve the issue. > > It crashes because the internal garbage collector data structures have > been clobbered. Which is likely due to some Lilypond code problem (like > data available too early for collection). So it is likely that we are > not "powerless to resolve the issue", but since the crash is happening > at a point rather remote from the likely bug and is quite sensitive to > the memory layout of the code, it is really hard to track down.
If it's at all relevant, we haven't heard any complaints about thsi before a month or two ago. Without a reliable test, this doesn't really help in narrowing down the scope of the problem -- but I do believe that it's due to (or at least, exacerbated by) a relatively recent lilypond code change. I think we can avoid the horns of the dilemma, though: - if it crashes regularly, (safe) contribution is impossible. But then we have a reliable (or at least reliable-ish) test case. - if it crashes very infrequently, (safe) contribution is a pain, but not impossible. Given the frequency I've heard about, I'd rank this as type-Maintainability, rather than type-Critical. With a note that if anybody can reproduce it with a command-line more than 30% of the time, we'll bump it up to type-Critical. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
