I appreciate this is going back a whole 9 months, but I've just started
looking again at one of my projects and I'm back, stuck against this
completely debilitating bug.
I'm now using 2.19.80 and it's not been fixed. Granted, a release build
probably wouldn't throw on "assert", but is anyone plann
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 12:41 Chris Yate wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 12:23 Thomas Morley
> wrote:
>
> 2017-01-06 13:10 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>
> >
> > Curiously, this didn't fail with assertions. I've just upgraded to
> 2.19.54,
> > and the test cases that crashed for me previously still crash
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 12:31 David Kastrup wrote:
Chris Yate writes:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 11:34 David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>
>> Assertions should not be used when LilyPond has a sane way to continue:
>> for that case, programming errors are more appropriate. The question is
>> whether this is
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 12:23 Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-01-06 13:10 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>
> >
> > Curiously, this didn't fail with assertions. I've just upgraded to
> 2.19.54,
> > and the test cases that crashed for me previously still crash :)
> >
> > Log attached (although I don't think this
Chris Yate writes:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 11:34 David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>
>> Assertions should not be used when LilyPond has a sane way to continue:
>> for that case, programming errors are more appropriate. The question is
>> whether this is the case here: I think we are also dealing with bad
2017-01-06 13:10 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>
> Curiously, this didn't fail with assertions. I've just upgraded to 2.19.54,
> and the test cases that crashed for me previously still crash :)
>
> Log attached (although I don't think this will be very helpful).
Strange that your log file (I assume de
2017-01-06 13:10 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> Curiously, this didn't fail with assertions. I've just upgraded to 2.19.54,
> and the test cases that crashed for me previously still crash :)
Could you remove all "Test 3x"-scores from the test-file and redo
compilation, please.
Cheers,
Harm
__
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 10:23 Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-01-04 16:01 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 14:25 Thomas Morley
> wrote:
>
> > Well, it's odd. I'm not sure this is anything to do with
> /overrideProperty.
> >
> > Referring back to my original tests, I can change your def
2017-01-06 12:34 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> 2017-01-04 16:01 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 14:25 Thomas Morley wrote:
>>
>>> Well, it's odd. I'm not sure this is anything to do with /overrideProperty.
>>>
>>> Referring back to my original tests, I ca
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 11:34 David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Assertions should not be used when LilyPond has a sane way to continue:
> for that case, programming errors are more appropriate. The question is
> whether this is the case here: I think we are also dealing with bad
> output even when assertio
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2017-01-04 16:01 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 14:25 Thomas Morley wrote:
>
>> Well, it's odd. I'm not sure this is anything to do with /overrideProperty.
>>
>> Referring back to my original tests, I can change your definitions to the
>> following, and i
2017-01-04 16:01 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 14:25 Thomas Morley wrote:
> Well, it's odd. I'm not sure this is anything to do with /overrideProperty.
>
> Referring back to my original tests, I can change your definitions to the
> following, and it will crash on each of your tes
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 14:25 Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-01-04 14:26 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> >
> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 12:39 Thomas Morley
> wrote:
> >>
> >> 2017-01-04 11:11 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> >>
> >> > I'm not quite sure what you want me to test, but, here's what I've
> >> > tried.
> >
Hi everybody!
On 64-bit Linux I also saw failures caused by manual page breaking
with too few space a few months ago. I had no time to investigate
the problem then, but there definitely is a problem not only on windows.
I saw assertion failures, but I also managed to immediately kill lilypond
wit
2017-01-04 14:26 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 12:39 Thomas Morley wrote:
>>
>> 2017-01-04 11:11 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>>
>> > I'm not quite sure what you want me to test, but, here's what I've
>> > tried.
>> [...]
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> sorry not been clear enough.
>> Many than
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 12:39 Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-01-04 11:11 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>
> > I'm not quite sure what you want me to test, but, here's what I've tried.
> [...]
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> sorry not been clear enough.
> Many thanks for your testings though.
>
> I've now created the attach
2017-01-04 11:11 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> I'm not quite sure what you want me to test, but, here's what I've tried.
[...]
Hi Chris,
sorry not been clear enough.
Many thanks for your testings though.
I've now created the attached test-file (and the pdf I get [*])
Please uncomment the test-score
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 at 22:58 Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-01-03 18:04 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> > On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 at 16:23 Thomas Morley
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Do you have the same problems, while putting it in \layout and using
> >> manual breaks? Like:
> >>
> >> \layout {
> >> \autoBreaksOff
>
2017-01-03 18:04 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 at 16:23 Thomas Morley wrote:
>>
>> Do you have the same problems, while putting it in \layout and using
>> manual breaks? Like:
>>
>> \layout {
>> \autoBreaksOff
>> }
>>
>> { \repeat unfold 22 b2
>> \repeat unfold 320 b2
>> \brea
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 at 16:23 Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-01-03 17:10 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 at 16:03 Thomas Morley
> wrote:
> >>
> >> This replies to
> >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2017-01/msg00010.html
> >>
> >> 2017-01-03 12:23 GMT+01:00 Chr
2017-01-03 17:10 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 at 16:03 Thomas Morley wrote:
>>
>> This replies to
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2017-01/msg00010.html
>>
>> 2017-01-03 12:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>> >
>> > Hmm. No, agreed, not ready for release yet. This on
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 at 16:03 Thomas Morley wrote:
> This replies to
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2017-01/msg00010.html
>
> 2017-01-03 12:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> >
> > Hmm. No, agreed, not ready for release yet. This one prevents me using
> > Lilypond on Windows for anythi
This replies to
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2017-01/msg00010.html
2017-01-03 12:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>
> Hmm. No, agreed, not ready for release yet. This one prevents me using
> Lilypond on Windows for anything other than pathologically small projects
> (i.e. nothing that
23 matches
Mail list logo
