Re: no movement on Critical issues; 2.16 in Oct ?

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 09:42:36AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> > I haven't seen any interest in
>> >   http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1771
>> 
>> My take on this (if nobody is going to protest in the next few hours) is
>> to revert the flawed fix.
>
> I think that's entirely reasonable.  IMO, if there's no clear
> offer of a fix within 48 hours of a bad commit, we should revert
> it.
>
>> The other critical bug appears to be related with multithreading, and I
>> consider it likely, given its random appearance, that it will mainly
>> affect multicore systems.  I don't have such a one.
>
> I thought lilypond was single-threaded?  Or is the C++ stuff
> single-threaded, but the guile stuff multi-threaded?  I mean, I
> know that functional programming is great for multi-threaded work
> in general, but I didn't think that we used it as such.

Guile explicitly differentiates functions "map" and "map-in-order".  In
theory, it would be free to evaluate "map" in multiple threads.  I have
no indication that it does so and would be quite surprised if they
indeed had as fine-grained threading as that.

But this bug has been reported as occuring non-deterministically even in
successive runs on the same machine, and there are rather few things
that can introduce such stochastic behavior (another possibility would
be timer-triggered garbage collection).

-- 
David Kastrup