Aaron Hill <lilyp...@hillvisions.com> writes: > On 2018-05-05 17:01, Aaron Hill wrote: >> How about this repro: >> >> %%% >> \version "2.19.80" >> \repeat unfold 36 { >> << { e'8 f' } \\ { c'4 } >> d'4 >> << { g'4. f'8 } \\ { e'16 d' e'4 d'8 } >> >> } >> %%% >> >> On my machine, I cannot compile this as-is without the LilyPond >> process ending prematurely with an access violation: >> >>> Faulting application name: lilypond.exe, version: 2.19.80.1, time >>> stamp: 0x0000000b >>> Faulting module name: lilypond.exe, version: 2.19.80.1, time stamp: >>> 0x0000000b >>> Exception code: 0xc0000005 >>> Fault offset: 0x000ea392
On Linux 64bit, I cannot get any of the versions I have to complain, either using 36 or 360 repetitions. >> If I lower the repeats to 35 or if I alter the expressions to remove a >> note (e.g. change { e'8 f' } to { e'4 }), it works. >> >> Here are some system details: >> >>> Operating System: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 16299) >>> (16299.rs3_release.170928-1534) >>> Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9500 @ 2.60GHz (2 CPUs) >>> Memory: 6144MB >>> Page File: 3362MB used, 3804MB available Oh man, you went whole hog on your computer. For my own T61 laptop, I only went for the second-fastest CPU (T9300) and I never bought any 4GB DDR2 SODIMM: just outside of my financial reach. Recently I snapped and got a T420 instead since DDR3 was so much more affordable that this just seemed a saner option with regard wanting to be able to work creating videos reasonably comfortably. Also landed me with a newer SSD: the SMART values of my old one were getting scary. I digress. >> I could install WinDbg and dig in further, if it would help. >> However, I would need symbols for the Windows build. > > So this is a bit of a Heisenbug we have here. When running under a > debugger, the access violation does not want to occur. And none at all on Linux. Not untypical for garbage collection problems. > However, after setting up Dr. MinGW > (https://github.com/jrfonseca/drmingw) as my post-mortem debugger, I > was able to get the following: > >> lilypond.exe caused an Access Violation at location 00000000004EA392 >> in module lilypond.exe Reading from location 000000000714E55C. >> >> Registers: >> eax=0714e550 ebx=0a24c130 ecx=0a24c130 edx=0a289448 esi=0a247f78 >> edi=00000002 >> eip=004ea392 esp=00b0d7ac ebp=07059948 iopl=0 nv up ei pl nz >> na po nc >> cs=0023 ss=002b ds=002b es=002b fs=0053 gs=002b >> efl=00010206 >> >> AddrPC Params >> 004EA392 07154BB0 05975BB0 07142110 lilypond.exe!Grob_info::context >> 004343D4 00000000 00000000 00000000 >> lilypond.exe!Beam_collision_engraver::finalize Some more backtrace might help. But it also needs to be a tangible problem we can reproduce. Given the lack of ability triggering it on Linux, I could imagine that a GUB update of the compiler chain might cause it to disappear. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond