Should this issue be closed, per the changes list announcing it in 2.14?
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Op dinsdag 22-06-2010 om 23:06 uur [tijdzone +], schreef
n.putt...@gmail.com:
> The clean build completed without a hitch, so it looks like a dirty tree
> was causing the crash.
Great, so I'll be integrating this then. Patrick has some
ideas/wishes for refactoring, but I'd like this to go in
On 2010/06/22 21:06:16, Neil Puttock wrote:
I'm just starting a completely clean build. Will report back as soon
as it's
finished.
OK, I cleaned my local repo out,
rm -rf *
git reset --hard origin
and rebuilt from scratch.
The clean build completed without a hitch, so it looks like a di
On 2010/06/22 19:09:43, jan.nieuwenhuizen wrote:
You still have a problem with this, is your
doc build tree clean?
I'm just starting a completely clean build. Will report back as soon as
it's finished.
Cheers,
Neil
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/show
I'm using a 64 bit machine (Ubuntu 10.04).
Me too. Fresh doc build succeeds?
You still have a problem with this, is your
doc build tree clean?
Jan.
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/show
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
h
On 18 June 2010 18:44, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> I just do
>
> gdb out/bin/lilypond
> r
Unfortunately that doesn't help: it runs fine following the segfault,
just like the bare snippet does.
Cheers,
Neil
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond
Op vrijdag 18-06-2010 om 17:32 uur [tijdzone +], schreef
n.putt...@gmail.com:
> On 2010/06/18 11:29:23, jan.nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>
> > I'll go ahead and test on a 32 bit machine then. It compiles
> > fine for me.
>
> I'm using a 64 bit machine (Ubuntu 10.04).
Weird, me too.
> Any tips on h
On 2010/06/18 11:29:23, jan.nieuwenhuizen wrote:
I'll go ahead and test on a 32 bit machine then. It compiles
fine for me.
I'm using a 64 bit machine (Ubuntu 10.04).
Any tips on how I can debug via gdb?
Cheers,
Neil
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/show
__
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:29 PM, wrote:
>
>> If I run a test file, e.g.,
>
>> out/bin/lilypond -d backend=svg -d svg-woff --output=woff example-1.ly
>
> Yeah. Where has example-1.ly gone? Can't we have some simple
> test files in input/, what was wrong with that?
I killed them all in preparat
On 2010/06/17 20:07:23, Patrick McCarty wrote:
I also think we should stay away from SVG features that didn't make it
into SVG
Tiny 1.2. altglyph is one of those features.
See my comment below for a possibility.
Okay. I heard that SVG 1.2 (esp. Tiny) was dead; but esp. as
does not work
Do you compile with --disable-optimising?
Yes.
I've done a few more tests, and the doc build compiles fine with an
optimized
binary, but crashes consistently on f2/lily-6d3b14b3.ly when using an
unoptimized binary.
I'll go ahead and test on a 32 bit machine then. It compiles
fine for me
On 2010/06/17 20:04:53, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 2010/06/17 19:49:26, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> Adding the following code fixes the memory leak Neil refers to,
though there
> might be a better way.
>
> (if (ly:get-option 'svg-woff)
> (module-define! (ly:outputter-module outputter) 'paper #f
Just a few more comments...
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/diff/34001/35014
File scm/output-svg.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/diff/34001/35014#newcode25
scm/output-svg.scm:25: ;;; set by framework-gnome.scm
;;; set by framework-svg.scm
http://codereview.appspot.com/
On 2010/06/17 19:49:26, Patrick McCarty wrote:
Adding the following code fixes the memory leak Neil refers to, though
there
might be a better way.
(if (ly:get-option 'svg-woff)
(module-define! (ly:outputter-module outputter) 'paper #f))
Ah, that's cute. :)
I was searching throught t
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/diff/34001/35011
File scm/framework-svg.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/diff/34001/35011#newcode138
scm/framework-svg.scm:138: (dump (svg-end))
Adding the following code fixes the memory leak Neil refers to, though
there might be a better
Hi Jan,
On 2010/06/15 08:55:49, jan.nieuwenhuizen wrote:
I just rebased the patch onto latest master and did
a fresh build and doc-build
make all all-doc
and cannot reproduce it, the doc builds without problems.
Do you compile with --disable-optimising?
I've done a few more tests,
On 2010/06/14 20:09:41, Neil Puttock wrote:
Hi Neil,
I just rebased the patch onto latest master and did
a fresh build and doc-build
make all all-doc
and cannot reproduce it, the doc builds without problems.
Here's the tail of the build log (not much use, I'm afraid):
[/home/neil/lil
Hi Jan,
On 2010/06/09 21:58:13, janneke-list_xs4all.nl wrote:
Thanks for looking into this! I've added a fix for this; it appears
that a pango font (which specifies an existing font file) can have no
matching pango physical fonts. Quite strange.
Cheers, it works fine now.
I've tried a docs
Op maandag 07-06-2010 om 16:44 uur [tijdzone +], schreef
n.putt...@gmail.com:
Hi Neil,
> I've just been testing this patch, and have stumbled upon a problem with
> chords. With this snippet,
Thanks for looking into this! I've added a fix for this; it appears
that a pango font (which specifi
Hi Jan,
I've just been testing this patch, and have stumbled upon a problem with
chords. With this snippet,
\chords {
c4
}
I get the following error message:
/home/neil/lilypond/out/share/lilypond/current/scm/backend-library.scm:270:23:
In procedure car in expression (car (ly:pango-font-phy
On 2010/06/06 18:42:05, Patrick McCarty wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/diff/13002/17014
File configure.in (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/diff/13002/17014#newcode140
configure.in:140: STEPMAKE_PATH_PROG(FONTFORGE, fontforge, REQUIRED,
20090923)
Is 20090923 actual
Move to font.scm or backend-library.scm?
Moved to backend-library.scm. I mistook output-lib to be the
library for output-*.scm but it isn't, thanks.
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/show
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
h
Graham,
On 6 Jun 2010, at 21:33, Graham Percival wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 06:42:05PM +, pnor...@gmail.com wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/diff/13002/17014#newcode140
configure.in:140: STEPMAKE_PATH_PROG(FONTFORGE, fontforge, REQUIRED,
20090923)
Is 20090923 actually requ
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 06:42:05PM +, pnor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/diff/13002/17014#newcode140
> configure.in:140: STEPMAKE_PATH_PROG(FONTFORGE, fontforge, REQUIRED,
> 20090923)
> Is 20090923 actually required?
>
> I didn't want to bump the required fontfor
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/diff/13002/17014
File configure.in (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/diff/13002/17014#newcode140
configure.in:140: STEPMAKE_PATH_PROG(FONTFORGE, fontforge, REQUIRED,
20090923)
Is 20090923 actually required?
I didn't want to bump the required fo
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/diff/13002/17023
File scm/output-lib.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/1428042/diff/13002/17023#newcode897
scm/output-lib.scm:897: (define-public (font-name-split font-name)
These look out of place here. Move to font.scm or backend-library.scm?
ht
26 matches
Mail list logo
