lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Assertion failure on current master


From: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Assertion failure on current master
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 19:01:37 +0200

On Oct 1, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:

> Hey guys,
> 
> I can't complete test-baseline due to an assertion error running
> mozart-hrn-3.ly.  Here's the backtrace:
> 
> Drawing systems...lilypond: ../flower/include/interval.hh:226: T
> Interval_t<T>::center() const [with T = double]: Assertion `!is_empty
> ()' failed.
> 
> Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
> 
> (gdb) bt
> #0  0x00007ffff508fd05 in raise (sig=6)
>   at ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:64
> #1  0x00007ffff5093ab6 in abort () at abort.c:92
> #2  0x00007ffff50887c5 in __assert_fail (assertion=0x70bd60 "!is_empty ()",
>   file=<value optimised out>, line=226, function=<value optimised out>)
>   at assert.c:81
> #3  0x000000000041bf01 in Interval_t<double>::center (this=0x7fffffff7310)
>   at ../flower/include/interval.hh:226
> #4  0x00000000006d8b2c in Tuplet_number::calc_y_offset (smob=0x7ffff22bebe0)
>   at tuplet-number.cc:83
> #5  0x00007ffff7926ae4 in scm_dapply () from /usr/lib/libguile.so.17
> #6  0x00000000004fc65f in Grob::try_callback_on_alist (this=0x108d150,
>   alist=0x108d1b0, sym=0x7ffff2a6c080, proc=0x7ffff45ac530)
>   at grob-property.cc:231
> #7  0x00000000004fc398 in Grob::internal_get_property (this=0x108d150,
>   sym=0x7ffff2a6c080) at grob-property.cc:188
> #8  0x0000000000505efd in Grob::get_offset (this=0x108d150, a=Y_AXIS)
>   at grob.cc:383
> #9  0x0000000000505a67 in Grob::relative_coordinate (this=0x108d150,
>   refp=0x184dc00, a=Y_AXIS) at grob.cc:312
> #10 0x00000000005062a4 in Grob::extent (this=0x108d150, refp=0x184dc00,
>   a=Y_AXIS) at grob.cc:427
> #11 0x000000000043a1ad in add_boxes (me=0x108d150, x_common=0x18950a0,
> 
> Looks like the new tuplet collision avoidance code.
> 
> Cheers,
> Neil

Hey Neil,

I just ran mozart-hrn-3.ly on an unoptimized binary and could not reproduce the 
problem.  Could someone else please verify?

Cheers,
MS


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]