- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Bugtrack DB updated

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 01:56:44PM +0000, corvid wrote: > > Jorge wrote: > > > The Bugtrack DB was updated for dillo2 too. > > > > When I compare it to an old copy I have locally, > > it appears as if entries were deleted randomly > > rather than because they have been fixed. > > > > e.g., starting at the top, there used to be > > 127. "optgroup is ignored...", and optgroup is > > still commented out in Tags. > > But > > 128. "in form, input type=file is ignored..." > > remains, even though I implemented that. > > They were not deleted at random. > > I checked lots of them and set "done" on the ones that work. > This is with regard to dillo2. If they still don't work in dillo1 > doesn't matter. I set done on things a while back if they worked, (sometimes leaving UI ones if the fltk replacement feature still had its own brokenness). > Along the long way a few were deleted... I also wondered whether > to start with a clean bug-track, but preferred to comb the whole > DB and try to keep the valuable information. > > If you take a bigger sample, the first impression may change. Let's see. Starting from the top: 127. optgroup. fixed: NO deleted: YES 128. file input. fixed: YES deleted: NO 131. frames. fixed: NO deleted: YES 138. anim. gifs. fixed: NO deleted: NO 159. cache limit. fixed: NO deleted: YES 161. cache control. fixed: NO deleted: YES 185. "Tables, part II: structure elements" fixed: depends on whether that means thead et al. deleted: YES 220. forms don't remember data. fixed: NO deleted: YES 224. AUTH. fixed: NO deleted: NO 242. CSS. fixed: NO deleted: NO 245. image-broken indicator. fixed: NO deleted: NO 250. PNG alpha different bgrounds. fixed: NO deleted: YES 270. punctuation wrapping. fixed: NO deleted: YES 281. non-latin-1 charsets. fixed: YES deleted: NO (gets bored) First impression has not changed.

Aug. 29, 2008

Bugtrack DB updated

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 01:56:44PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Jorge wrote: > > The Bugtrack DB was updated for dillo2 too. > > When I compare it to an old copy I have locally, > it appears as if entries were deleted randomly > rather than because they have been fixed. > > e.g., starting at the top, there used to be > 127. "optgroup is ignored...", and optgroup is > still commented out in Tags. > But > 128. "in form, input type=file is ignored..." > remains, even though I implemented that. They were not deleted at random. I checked lots of them and set "done" on the ones that work. This is with regard to dillo2. If they still don't work in dillo1 doesn't matter. Along the long way a few were deleted... I also wondered whether to start with a clean bug-track, but preferred to comb the whole DB and try to keep the valuable information. If you take a bigger sample, the first impression may change. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Aug. 29, 2008

Bugtrack DB updated

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > The Bugtrack DB was updated for dillo2 too. When I compare it to an old copy I have locally, it appears as if entries were deleted randomly rather than because they have been fixed. e.g., starting at the top, there used to be 127. "optgroup is ignored...", and optgroup is still commented out in Tags. But 128. "in form, input type=file is ignored..." remains, even though I implemented that.

Aug. 29, 2008

Bugtrack DB updated

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi, The Bugtrack DB was updated for dillo2 too. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Aug. 29, 2008

web site partial update

by joerg.sonnenberger＠web.de

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:27:57PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > BTW, what version number should we give to dillo2? > 2.0 seems like a good candidate. Start with 1.99.0 and provide a first real alpha release? Joerg

Aug. 28, 2008

web site partial update

by jcid＠dillo.org

Hi, With a view to prepare our next dillo2 release, the web site has been partially updated. From the links column, these sections: Developers, Users, Related and "Hosted at" are up to date. Even the downloadable alternative icons work, and pages were bug-meter validated too. BTW, what version number should we give to dillo2? 2.0 seems like a good candidate. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Aug. 28, 2008

init_rawdatabuffer is slow.

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 06:13:23PM +0000, corvid wrote: > That's the code that paints the stripes that you see initially in images. > > Here's what gprof said when I loaded a 2 meg jpeg: > > Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. > % cumulative self self total > time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name > 34.76 0.57 0.57 1 570.00 570.00 dw::fltk::init_rawdatabuffer(int, int, int, int, unsigned char > 26.83 1.01 0.44 1536 0.29 0.29 dw::fltk::FltkImgbuf::copyRow(int, unsigned char const*) > 25.00 1.42 0.41 379 1.08 1.08 dStr_insert_l > 7.32 1.54 0.12 rgb_to_565d(unsigned char const*, unsigned char*, int, int) > 0.61 1.55 0.01 7759 0.00 0.00 lout::container::untyped::Iterator::hasNext() > .. > > > If I take out the init_rawdatabuffer() call and put in a bzero() instead, > I get: > > Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. > % cumulative self self total > time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name > 51.43 0.54 0.54 1536 0.35 0.36 dw::fltk::FltkImgbuf::copyRow(int, unsigned char const*) > 34.29 0.90 0.36 373 0.97 0.97 dStr_insert_l > 5.71 0.96 0.06 rgb_to_565d(unsigned char const*, unsigned char*, int, int) > 1.90 0.98 0.02 a_Image_imgbuf_new > 0.95 0.99 0.01 10868 0.00 0.00 lout::container::untyped::Collection0::AbstractIterator::unref() > .. > > > Any objections, then, to having pictures start out black instead of striped? OK, light gray using (memset) was committed as the new interim image background. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Aug. 27, 2008

init_rawdatabuffer is slow.

by corvid＠lavabit.com

That's the code that paints the stripes that you see initially in images. Here's what gprof said when I loaded a 2 meg jpeg: Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. % cumulative self self total time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name 34.76 0.57 0.57 1 570.00 570.00 dw::fltk::init_rawdatabuffer(int, int, int, int, unsigned char 26.83 1.01 0.44 1536 0.29 0.29 dw::fltk::FltkImgbuf::copyRow(int, unsigned char const*) 25.00 1.42 0.41 379 1.08 1.08 dStr_insert_l 7.32 1.54 0.12 rgb_to_565d(unsigned char const*, unsigned char*, int, int) 0.61 1.55 0.01 7759 0.00 0.00 lout::container::untyped::Iterator::hasNext() .. If I take out the init_rawdatabuffer() call and put in a bzero() instead, I get: Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. % cumulative self self total time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name 51.43 0.54 0.54 1536 0.35 0.36 dw::fltk::FltkImgbuf::copyRow(int, unsigned char const*) 34.29 0.90 0.36 373 0.97 0.97 dStr_insert_l 5.71 0.96 0.06 rgb_to_565d(unsigned char const*, unsigned char*, int, int) 1.90 0.98 0.02 a_Image_imgbuf_new 0.95 0.99 0.01 10868 0.00 0.00 lout::container::untyped::Collection0::AbstractIterator::unref() .. Any objections, then, to having pictures start out black instead of striped?

Aug. 26, 2008

a list of what dillo2 runs on

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Christopher Illies wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 04:14:34PM +0000, corvid wrote: > > I wonder whether we could get someone for each system who > > would have the responsibility (or, let's say "_glory_" :) > > of responding to "Hey, we changed [some configuration stuff] > > in the latest CVS. Does it work fine on your system?" messages. > > I can take that part for FreeBSD for now and will respond when such > messages are posted to this list. Also, I can do a fresh compile every > two weeks or so. Cool!

Aug. 26, 2008

a list of what dillo2 runs on

by christopher.illies＠ki.se

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 04:14:34PM +0000, corvid wrote: > I wonder whether we could get someone for each system who > would have the responsibility (or, let's say "_glory_" :) > of responding to "Hey, we changed [some configuration stuff] > in the latest CVS. Does it work fine on your system?" messages. I can take that part for FreeBSD for now and will respond when such messages are posted to this list. Also, I can do a fresh compile every two weeks or so. Christopher

Aug. 26, 2008