[vtk-developers] Crashes after recent checkins

[Bill Lorensen]

Berk,

I can easily reproduce the problem on two different systems. SO when you
have a patch ready I can try.
However, I will be offline for a few days (Tues-Thurs) this week. If you
can't find a good solution quickly, perhaps we could use my patch as a
temporary fix, or backout the atomic stuff until it is ready.

Bill



On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Berk Geveci <berk.geveci at kitware.com>wrote:

> Bill & David: To me, the actual issue to fix is the one in vtkTimeStamp.
> Both Bill's fix and what David is suggesting still hinge on using a
> destroyed object, which makes me a little uncomfortable. So I think that
> the right fix is one that does not access the static object in the
> Modified() call. So let me think about a way of solving that problem and
> bounce it around for review.
>
> David: The main reason I used the Internal member was to avoid duplicating
> the header files in the subdirectories. Currently, they are shared by all
> implementation. The alternative would be to not use subdirectories and use
> the preprocessor I guess. Or to duplicate the header files.
>
> -berk
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:00 AM, David Gobbi <david.gobbi at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Berk,
>>
>> The current design seems to hinge on the fact that you don't want to
>> include the Kaapi/OpenMP/etc header files in vtkAtomicIntNN.h.
>> But is it really such a bad thing to bring in those headers, especially
>> since the default "Sequential" implementation that most people will
>> use won't bring any special headers into vtkAtomicIntNN.h at all?
>> It seems to me that as long as "Internal" is a pointer, there are
>> going to be static initialization problems.
>>
>>  - David
>>
>> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Berk Geveci <berk.geveci at kitware.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for tracking it btw :-)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Berk Geveci <berk.geveci at kitware.com
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Grrr. This is a really annoying issue with using globals like this. It
>> >>> looks like on that machines, the order of deletion during cleanup is
>> >>> different and causes this crash. I'll work on this today.
>> >>>
>> >>> -berk
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Bill Lorensen <
>> bill.lorensen at gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Looks to me that
>> >>>> static vtkAtomicInt32 GlobalTimeStamp(0)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> is being deleted during the finalization before some of the objects
>> have
>> >>>> been deleted.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I verified that by printing out the this pointer in the atomic
>> >>>> destructor and printing out a message if Increment() is called with
>> an
>> >>>> Internal = 0.
>>
>
>


-- 
Unpaid intern in BillsBasement at noware dot com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/vtk-developers/attachments/20130826/b7f85297/attachment.html>