I appreciate this is going back a whole 9 months, but I've just started
looking again at one of my projects and I'm back, stuck against this
completely debilitating bug.
I'm now using 2.19.80 and it's not been fixed. Granted, a release build
probably wouldn't throw on "assert", but is anyone
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 12:41 Chris Yate wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 12:23 Thomas Morley
> wrote:
>
> 2017-01-06 13:10 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>
> >
> > Curiously, this didn't fail with assertions. I've just upgraded to
>
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 12:31 David Kastrup wrote:
Chris Yate writes:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 11:34 David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>
>> Assertions should not be used when LilyPond has a sane way to continue:
>> for that case, programming errors are more
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 12:23 Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-01-06 13:10 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>
> >
> > Curiously, this didn't fail with assertions. I've just upgraded to
> 2.19.54,
> > and the test cases that crashed for me previously still crash :)
>
Chris Yate writes:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 11:34 David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>
>> Assertions should not be used when LilyPond has a sane way to continue:
>> for that case, programming errors are more appropriate. The question is
>> whether this is the case here:
2017-01-06 13:10 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>
> Curiously, this didn't fail with assertions. I've just upgraded to 2.19.54,
> and the test cases that crashed for me previously still crash :)
>
> Log attached (although I don't think this will be very helpful).
Strange that your
2017-01-06 13:10 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> Curiously, this didn't fail with assertions. I've just upgraded to 2.19.54,
> and the test cases that crashed for me previously still crash :)
Could you remove all "Test 3x"-scores from the test-file and redo
compilation, please.
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 10:23 Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-01-04 16:01 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 14:25 Thomas Morley
> wrote:
>
> > Well, it's odd. I'm not sure this is anything to do with
>
2017-01-06 12:34 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> 2017-01-04 16:01 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 14:25 Thomas Morley wrote:
>>
>>> Well, it's odd. I'm not sure this is
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 11:34 David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Assertions should not be used when LilyPond has a sane way to continue:
> for that case, programming errors are more appropriate. The question is
> whether this is the case here: I think we are also dealing with bad
> output
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2017-01-04 16:01 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 14:25 Thomas Morley wrote:
>
>> Well, it's odd. I'm not sure this is anything to do with /overrideProperty.
>>
>> Referring back to
2017-01-04 16:01 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 14:25 Thomas Morley wrote:
> Well, it's odd. I'm not sure this is anything to do with /overrideProperty.
>
> Referring back to my original tests, I can change your definitions to the
>
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 14:25 Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-01-04 14:26 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> >
> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 12:39 Thomas Morley
> wrote:
> >>
> >> 2017-01-04 11:11 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>
Hi everybody!
On 64-bit Linux I also saw failures caused by manual page breaking
with too few space a few months ago. I had no time to investigate
the problem then, but there definitely is a problem not only on windows.
I saw assertion failures, but I also managed to immediately kill lilypond
2017-01-04 14:26 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 12:39 Thomas Morley wrote:
>>
>> 2017-01-04 11:11 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>>
>> > I'm not quite sure what you want me to test, but, here's what I've
>> > tried.
>>
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 at 12:39 Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-01-04 11:11 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>
> > I'm not quite sure what you want me to test, but, here's what I've tried.
> [...]
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> sorry not been clear enough.
> Many thanks for your
2017-01-04 11:11 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> I'm not quite sure what you want me to test, but, here's what I've tried.
[...]
Hi Chris,
sorry not been clear enough.
Many thanks for your testings though.
I've now created the attached test-file (and the pdf I get [*])
Please
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 at 22:58 Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-01-03 18:04 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> > On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 at 16:23 Thomas Morley
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Do you have the same problems, while putting it in \layout and
2017-01-03 18:04 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 at 16:23 Thomas Morley wrote:
>>
>> Do you have the same problems, while putting it in \layout and using
>> manual breaks? Like:
>>
>> \layout {
>> \autoBreaksOff
>> }
>>
>> { \repeat
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 at 16:23 Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-01-03 17:10 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 at 16:03 Thomas Morley
> wrote:
> >>
> >> This replies to
> >>
2017-01-03 17:10 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 at 16:03 Thomas Morley wrote:
>>
>> This replies to
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2017-01/msg00010.html
>>
>> 2017-01-03 12:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate
On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 at 16:03 Thomas Morley wrote:
> This replies to
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2017-01/msg00010.html
>
> 2017-01-03 12:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Yate :
> >
> > Hmm. No, agreed, not ready for release yet. This one
22 matches
Mail list logo