[Csnd-dev] Possible bug in init time array output UDO

Date	2025-12-07 23:33
From	Richard Knight
Subject	[Csnd-dev] Possible bug in init time array output UDO
	Hi I'm using the latest commit and noticed that a UDO defined like the following causes a segfault with "free(): invalid pointer" opcode test1, i[]i, 0 iout[] fillarray 1, 2, 3 inum = 123 xout iout, inum endop instr 1 iout[], inum test1 endin This only seems to happen if a primitive follows an array (i[]i and ii[]i do not work, but ii[] and i[]i[] work OK), and only occurs with init parameters, the same at k-rate works OK. Shall I raise this as a bug on github? thanks RK

Date	2025-12-08 06:45
From	Hlöðver Sigurðsson
Subject	Re: [Csnd-dev] Possible bug in init time array output UDO
	this could have (maybe) been a change I made that broke this. I'll take a look at this today, and prepare a test-case to catch this. On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 at 01:33, Richard Knight <richard@1bpm.net> wrote: Hi I'm using the latest commit and noticed that a UDO defined like the following causes a segfault with "free(): invalid pointer" opcode test1, i[]i, 0 iout[] fillarray 1, 2, 3 inum = 123 xout iout, inum endop instr 1 iout[], inum test1 endin This only seems to happen if a primitive follows an array (i[]i and ii[]i do not work, but ii[] and i[]i[] work OK), and only occurs with init parameters, the same at k-rate works OK. Shall I raise this as a bug on github? thanks RK

Date	2025-12-08 08:14
From	vlz
Subject	Re: [Csnd-dev] Possible bug in init time array output UDO
	yes, there is a bug we have fixed in a PR which I think is related. best Prof. Victor Lazzarini Maynooth University Ireland > On 7 Dec 2025, at 23:34, Richard Knight wrote: > > Hi > I'm using the latest commit and noticed that a UDO defined like the following causes a segfault with "free(): invalid pointer" > > opcode test1, i[]i, 0 > iout[] fillarray 1, 2, 3 > inum = 123 > xout iout, inum > endop > > instr 1 > iout[], inum test1 > endin > > > > This only seems to happen if a primitive follows an array (i[]i and ii[]i do not work, but ii[] and i[]i[] work OK), and only occurs with init parameters, the same at k-rate works OK. > Shall I raise this as a bug on github? > > thanks > RK

Date	2025-12-08 11:25
From	Richard Knight
Subject	Re: [Csnd-dev] Possible bug in init time array output UDO
	Thank you! On 2025-12-08 08:14, vlz wrote: > yes, there is a bug we have fixed in a PR which I think is related. > > best > Prof. Victor Lazzarini > Maynooth University > Ireland > >> On 7 Dec 2025, at 23:34, Richard Knight wrote: >> >> Hi >> I'm using the latest commit and noticed that a UDO defined like the >> following causes a segfault with "free(): invalid pointer" >> >> opcode test1, i[]i, 0 >> iout[] fillarray 1, 2, 3 >> inum = 123 >> xout iout, inum >> endop >> >> instr 1 >> iout[], inum test1 >> endin >> >> >> >> This only seems to happen if a primitive follows an array (i[]i and >> ii[]i do not work, but ii[] and i[]i[] work OK), and only occurs with >> init parameters, the same at k-rate works OK. >> Shall I raise this as a bug on github? >> >> thanks >> RK