On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer
<address@hidden> wrote:
Am Montag, 31. Januar 2011, um 20:09:01 schrieb Joe Neeman:
> Guile's garbage collection generates many valgrind warnings (although a
> quick google suggests that they've been improving the situation). I've
> attached a suppression file that eliminates many of the bogus warnings.
Yes, I know about the garbage collection creating many warnings (Thanks for
that hand-crafted suppression file). That's why I only looked at stacktraces
that also include lilypond functions.
In particular, the warnings (spurious or not?) containing calls like:
==1739== by 0x409F539: scm_mark_all (in /usr/lib/libguile.so.17.3.1)
==1739== by 0x409E54B: scm_i_gc (in /usr/lib/libguile.so.17.3.1)
==1739== by 0x40A02AA: ??? (in /usr/lib/libguile.so.17.3.1)
==1739== by 0x81554AB: Moment::smobbed_copy() const (moment.cc:58)
==1739== by 0x81640EF: ly_music_length(scm_unused_struct*) (music-
scheme.cc:32)
appear ONLY with Jay Anderson's test case (thread "Segfault 2.13.47" on bug-
lilypond), but not with any other file I tried. So I thought that might give
an indication about where the problem lies (like the part-combiner causing a
mess in some scheme structures or so).
That's still in guile's garbage collection. The fact that lilypond code appears in the stack trace just means that some lily code triggered the collection. It could be that only Jay's test case created garbage in the right pattern to trigger garbage collection just there.
The only times I've successfully used valgrind to find a bug in lilypond has been with a lilypond function at the top of the stack trace.
Cheers,
Joe