[vtk-developers] Crashes after recent checkins

[Berk Geveci]

Hi Bill,

If you are around today, I should have something for you shortly. If not,
we can commit your fix as a temporary one.

Thanks,
-berk


On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/de58fb55/attachment.html>