Re: no movement on Critical issues; 2.16 in Oct ?

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 10:04:59AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> 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).

In C++ code, I'd suspect some uninitalized variables (especially
since it always seems to work on the second run on a machine that
failed in the first run).  But since that throw() message seems to
come from guile, and AFAIK you can't have an unitalized variable
in guile, I guess that's not an issue?  Or could we be setting a
guile variable from some (uninitalized) C++ variable?

It's a shame that we can't (usefully) run valgrind on lilypond, or
that nobody's experiented with llvm or even AFAIK the more
sophisticated gcc options.  Finding uninitalized variables is a
task that can be done by the computer; humans should never need to
theorize about whether that's a cause or not.  Just run the
program with a trusted tool, and then you'll either find the
variables, or else you can cross that off from the list of
possibilities.

Cheers,
- Graham