lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: "Assertion failed!"


From: Andrew Bernard
Subject: Re: "Assertion failed!"
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 18:40:44 +1000
User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/0.0.0.150609

Hi David,

The one I have reported dumps core. So pretty much a fatal error. But it is 
good to know the program behaviour has been altered and that accounts for why 
we are suddenly seeing assertion failures when they occur.

Andrew





On 13/06/2015 18:04, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:

>"Andrew Bernard" <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> That's another assertion failure on top of the one I have been reporting in
>> 2.19.21. Can you please submit a bug report, given you have  an example that
>> produces the error?
>>
>> Something seems to be a bit broken in 2.19.21 compared to 2.19.20.Iif I had
>> the knowledge, I would jump in and fix it, but it's too early for me as yet,
>> not being familiar with the internals.
>>
>> Can you see if this works in 2.19.20? [Based on my hypothesis that 2.19.21
>> has regressed something, or introduced a bunch of defects.]
>
>More likely than not it is
>
>    <URL:https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2787>,
>    Issue 2787: Sanitize usage of -DDEBUG, -DNDEBUG, assert,
>    programming_error and so on
>
>that is making the difference for you here.  "assert" is a programmer's
>way to indicate that the failure of the assertion is something that the
>program is unable to deal with.  Consequently, a failed assertion aborts
>the program rather than continuing and likely crashing in unpredictable
>ways.
>
>Now assertion checks previously to this issue were only enabled on
>debugging builds, so only developers would have gotten to see them in
>versions compiled for testing.
>
>But it would appear that some cases of "assert" are perfectly capable of
>continuing gracefully, so that's more a case for the diagnostic
>"programming error" which reports conditions that should not be occuring
>but that are not fatal.
>
>They still deserve investigation but aborting the program for them would
>appear to be overkill as it seems unlikely they would cause operations
>to completely derail.
>
>-- 
>David Kastrup




reply via email to

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