Does not sound familiar, but I would guess that more printfs use more C stack, and maybe you're running out, causing weird things on overflows. However, I see you have assertions enabled, which should catch that... But perhaps increasing the C stack (TOTAL_STACK) would alter things. Otherwise, yes, SAFE_HEAP is a good idea.
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Christopher Forgeron <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm experimenting with a larger code-base, and part of my debugging > process is inserting printf's into the code to quickly mark progression and > variables of interest. > > I have noticed that there is a point where I seem to hit a 'max combined > string' limit - If I increase a printf's string with more detail, the code > starts to crash in a completely different spot for reasons I can't track. > > If I back off my added text in the printf, it returns to executing as I > expected. > > Even deleting an earlier printf will allow the latest printf to execute, > so it's not an error in the string. > > Currently I'm up to this: > > emcc -g4 -O0 --js-opts 0 -s EMULATE_FUNCTION_POINTER_CASTS=1 -s > ASSERTIONS=2 --separate-asm --memory-init-file 1 > > Will be trying the SAFE_HEAP and other options shortly to see if makes a > difference, but I was curious if this behaviour sounds familiar to anyone? > > Thanks. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "emscripten-discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "emscripten-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
