[PD] trying to track down a bug: Pd-extended 0.43-1 beta on Oneric 32 bit
johnharrisonwsu at gmail.com
Tue Apr 3 21:03:27 CEST 2012
Today's build (April 3, 2012) still crashes with creating/destroying
test99.pd. The gdb reports something a bit different though:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0807fd79 in pd_typedmess (x=0x647261, s=0x81c7f68, argc=2, argv=0x825fb80)
707 m_class.c: No such file or directory.
(gdb) watchdog: signaling pd...
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2012, at 3:32 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > On 2012-03-29 19:03, John Harrison wrote:
> >> I've been trying to track down a seg fault I keep getting and I'm still
> >> not sure if the problem is Gem or Pd-extended or what.
> >> This is the latest pd-extended 0.43.1 Beta CVS March 29 (today) running
> >> on Oneric 32 but. I have simplified my patch to a point it doesn't make
> >> sense anymore but I can still make it crash, so I figure that's what we
> >> need.
> >> Basically if you create a new patch then make the object [test99 1],
> >> then copy and paste that object, then change the 1 parameter to a 2 you
> >> get a seg fault most of the time. If not, creating a [test99 3] or
> >> [test99 4] should do it, again most of the time.
> >> It seems related with Gem but I'm not sure if it is a Gem bug. I tried
> >> the same Gem library with Pd vanilla and it didn't crash. On the other
> >> hand, it seems related to the [pix_image] object in test99. Also you
> >> need to have the parameters to get the patch to crash, even though the
> >> patch doesn't take parameters. (The original patch did take parameters.)
> >> Core dump has only this information: Program terminated with signal 11,
> >> Segmentation fault.
> >> #0 0x0111ac01 in gem::RTE::Outlet::send(std::string,
> >> std::vector<gem::any, std::allocator<gem::any> >) () from
> >> /usr/lib/pd-extended/extra/Gem/Gem.pd_linux
> > if i'm not mistaken this has been recently fixed in Gem (around 21st of
> > march) and is related to threaded loading of images and deleting objects
> > while the load is still in process.
> > to avoid the problem you can do either of those:
> > - - upgrade to a new version of gem (there's a backport of the fix to the
> > (stable) 0.93 branch of Gem, though no official release has been made
> > yet, containing the fix)
> > - - avoid using threaded loading of images, e.g by sending the [thread 0(
> > message to [pix_image] before loading images.
> > - - avoid deleting a [pix_image] that has pending "open" requests
> I just committed the latest patches from the 0.93 Gem branch to the
> Pd-extended 0.43 release branch. They'll be in tomorrow's build. John,
> could you test this and report back if there are any problems?
> I hate it when they say, "He gave his life for his country." Nobody gives
> their life for anything. We steal the lives of these kids. -Admiral Gene
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list