[PD] totally absurd

matteo sisti sette matteosistisette at gmail.com
Fri Oct 5 13:38:10 CEST 2007


Hi,

I'm struggling with a problem of the most weird kind.

I've not been able to isolate it, but I do can report a systematic
behaviour which astonishes me.

PD-Vanilla 0.40.1 in Windows XP

I have an enormous very complex patch that I've been developing for
months, built with a careful top-down/bottom-up design (i.e. designing
and reusing a huge lot of abstractions at various levels), with a lot
of GOP, also nested.
Up to now I didn't have any serious problem, and the programming of
the patch is quite clean; for example I used to be able to use it for
hours without without a single error message ever showing up in the
output.

Now, after some recent changes, the ABSURD behaviour is:

*CASE 1*
-I launch PD
-I open my main patch
-PD crashes immediately

*CASE 2*
-I launch PD
-I create a new patch (File/new)
-I put a [route a b c] (literally) object, and NOTHING more
-I open my main patch
-PD DOESN'T crash and the patch works great as it used to do.


If I launch PD with from commandline with -noloadbang, it never
crashes, so I guess the crash is caused by some message triggered by
some loadbang



I've repeated the two tests tens of times (always closing pd and
starting over from scratch) and the results are 100% coherent, i.e.
case 1 always crashes, and case 2 never crashes.
I'm really astonished: how is it possible that the mere existence or
non existence of a [route] object not connected to anything can
prevent or not the crash, whatever causes it?!!!???!?!?

I know I'm giving too little information to ask for a diagnosis, but
does anybody know of some weired bug of [route]??


The "recent changes" mentioned above, are in the [control_element]
abstractionn that I attach, which uses the [schange] and [switch2]
abstractions.
I can't see anything wrong in them....
I can't reproduce the bug with a simple test patch using an instance
of [control_element]. It is used tons of times in my "main" patch.....

Any idea? Do you see any potential problem in the attached patch that
may cause illegal situations under some circumstances?


I will greatly appreciate any help

Bye
m.

-- 
Matteo Sisti Sette
matteosistisette at gmail.com
http://www.matteosistisette.com
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: control_element.pd
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20071005/d04a1849/attachment.asc>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: switch2.pd
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20071005/d04a1849/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: schange.pd
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20071005/d04a1849/attachment-0001.asc>


More information about the Pd-list mailing list