lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Problem with guile-2.9.1-prerelease


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Problem with guile-2.9.1-prerelease
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:33:57 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi,
>
> according to this post:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2018-10/msg00000.html
> guile prepares to release 3.0 soon.
>
> I tried to test LilyPond with the guile-2.9.1-prelease.
> Checking out our dev/guile-v2-work-branch, rebasing, applying several
> patches (working with guile-2.2.4) as well as editing configure.ac and
> aclocal.m4 to accept this guile-version I've got a successful 'make'
>
> Though, 'make doc' fails soon with 'input/regression/rest-positioning.ly'
> I boiled it down to this minimal:
>
> \version "2.21.0"
> $@(make-list 2 #{ r1 #})
>
> I get:
>
> $ lilypond-git-guile-3.0 atest-80.ly
> GNU LilyPond 2.21.0
> Processing `atest-80.ly'
> Parsing...Backtrace:
>            6 (apply-smob/1 #<catch-closure 560bc9932720>)
> In ice-9/eval.scm:
>    293:34  5 (_ #(#(#<directory (lily) 560bc9a165a0>) #<variable 5…>))
>     619:8  4 (_ #(#(#(#(#(#(#(#<directory (lily) …>) …) …) …) …) …) …))
> In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
>     640:9  3 (for-each #<procedure 560bcae4a5e0 at ice-9/eval.scm:3…> …)
> In ice-9/eval.scm:
>     619:8  2 (_ #(#(#(#(#(#<directory (lily) 560bc9a1…> …) …) …) …) …))
> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>     826:9  1 (catch _ _ #<procedure 560bcb002540 at ice-9/eval.scm:…> …)
> In unknown file:
>            0 (ly:parse-file "atest-80.ly")
>
> ERROR: In procedure ly:parse-file:
> In procedure struct-ref: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting
> struct): #<Prob: Music C++: Music((duration . #<Duration 1 >) (origin
> . #<location atest-80.ly:629:2>))((display-methods #<procedure method
> (a)>) (name . RestEvent) (iterator-ctor . #<procedure
> ly:rhythmic-music-iterator::constructor ()>) (types event
> rhythmic-event rest-event)) >
>
> I'm not able to get meaningful info out of this.
> Any insight?

Try with -dverbose ?  Sometimes that improves the backtrace.  Sounds
like some incompatible change of internals behavior but I have problems
guessing just what may be involved here.

-- 
David Kastrup



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]