- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Update on segfault issues

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:42:53PM -0400, Rob S wrote: > I have been playing around with the 1.3 port on my "broken" machine. > Still no luck with sorting out the segfault. I have spent a fair > amount of time in gdb and valgrind trying to track down the source of > the trouble, but no luck. The best I can do when compiling with gcc > is to use -O0, which produces an executable which does not segfault. > I have tried gcc 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6, to no avail. I have wondered if > it was something to do with my architecture; I am running an AMD E-350 > fusion processor in my machine. In light of this, I tried using the > appropriate -march setting with gcc 4.6, but again no luck. The only > bright side of all of this was that I decided to compile with Clang, > and it built nicely with only one warning (which I could not see the > reason for): > > > chain.c:189:50: warning: too many arguments in call to 'Chain_debug_msg' > Chain_debug_msg(FuncStr, Op, Branch, Dir, Info); > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ That's simple, just check the last repo! ;) > I will keep playing with this, to see if I can figure out the problem > with gcc, but my hope is fading with regards to finding a solution. Compile with debug info: CFLAGS="-g -O0" CXXFLAGS="-g -O0" ./configure --enable-ssl then run it under gdb: gdb ./dillo when it segfaults, look where it was: bt that's a good point to start. HTH -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 11, 2011

Development schedule for version 1.3

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:52:18PM +0000, corvid wrote: > Fabio wrote: > > Guys, how about putting some images from current Dillo with FLTK1.3 into > > another table at //www.dillo.org/screenshots/? > > Once there is no definition about release name, the table title can be > > something like "Dillo with FLTK1.3", plus (maybe) something catchy as > > "Coming Soon". > > For the version number, I initially leaned toward 2.3 a little, but > now I think I'm leaning toward 3.0 because it's simpler to say "3.x uses > 1.3 and runs on [whatever]" than "Starting with 2.3, ..." ... and dillo-3.0 works with fltk-1.3, and in the future with fltk-3.0, at least that's fltk devs' plan by now. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 11, 2011

Development schedule for version 1.3

by darkspirit5000＠gmail.com

How about dillo 2.1.3? It is a 2 version (fltk, css, ...) with fltk 1.3. Dillo can jump to 3.0 with floating objects :P Diego. 2011/6/11, Reza Farivar <rf.opensource(a)gmail.com>: > > > -Reza > > On Jun 10, 2011, at 3:52 PM, "corvid" <corvid(a)lavabit.com> wrote: > >> Fabio wrote: >>> Guys, how about putting some images from current Dillo with >>> FLTK1.3 into >>> another table at //www.dillo.org/screenshots/? >>> Once there is no definition about release name, the table title can >>> be >>> something like "Dillo with FLTK1.3", plus (maybe) something catchy as >>> "Coming Soon". >> >> For the version number, I initially leaned toward 2.3 a little, but >> now I think I'm leaning toward 3.0 because it's simpler to say "3.x >> uses >> 1.3 and runs on [whatever]" than "Starting with 2.3, ... > > How about dillo 2011? > >> >> It'd be interesting to have some screenshots (mostly if anyone >> contributes >> ones showing native OSX, if that looks any different from using the X >> backend) > > I can take screenshots of the Mac version. It's not that different > though, but at least it shows it's cocoa and not running on X. > > >> once Jorge decides that there won't be any more UI tweaking. >> (e.g., will the sizes of the progress boxes depend on their labels? >> I've >> noticed that the labels don't fit on occasion, but maybe that's >> intended >> to reduce redraws.) >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dillo-dev mailing list >> Dillo-dev(a)dillo.org >> http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev(a)dillo.org > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev >

June 11, 2011

Update on segfault issues

by mr_semantics＠hotmail.com

I have been playing around with the 1.3 port on my "broken" machine. Still no luck with sorting out the segfault. I have spent a fair amount of time in gdb and valgrind trying to track down the source of the trouble, but no luck. The best I can do when compiling with gcc is to use -O0, which produces an executable which does not segfault. I have tried gcc 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6, to no avail. I have wondered if it was something to do with my architecture; I am running an AMD E-350 fusion processor in my machine. In light of this, I tried using the appropriate -march setting with gcc 4.6, but again no luck. The only bright side of all of this was that I decided to compile with Clang, and it built nicely with only one warning (which I could not see the reason for): chain.c:189:50: warning: too many arguments in call to 'Chain_debug_msg' Chain_debug_msg(FuncStr, Op, Branch, Dir, Info); ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ I will keep playing with this, to see if I can figure out the problem with gcc, but my hope is fading with regards to finding a solution. Rob

June 11, 2011

Development schedule for version 1.3

by rf.opensource＠gmail.com

-Reza On Jun 10, 2011, at 3:52 PM, "corvid" <corvid(a)lavabit.com> wrote: > Fabio wrote: >> Guys, how about putting some images from current Dillo with >> FLTK1.3 into >> another table at //www.dillo.org/screenshots/? >> Once there is no definition about release name, the table title can >> be >> something like "Dillo with FLTK1.3", plus (maybe) something catchy as >> "Coming Soon". > > For the version number, I initially leaned toward 2.3 a little, but > now I think I'm leaning toward 3.0 because it's simpler to say "3.x > uses > 1.3 and runs on [whatever]" than "Starting with 2.3, ... How about dillo 2011? > > It'd be interesting to have some screenshots (mostly if anyone > contributes > ones showing native OSX, if that looks any different from using the X > backend) I can take screenshots of the Mac version. It's not that different though, but at least it shows it's cocoa and not running on X. > once Jorge decides that there won't be any more UI tweaking. > (e.g., will the sizes of the progress boxes depend on their labels? > I've > noticed that the labels don't fit on occasion, but maybe that's > intended > to reduce redraws.) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev(a)dillo.org > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev

June 11, 2011

Development schedule for version 1.3

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Fabio wrote: > Guys, how about putting some images from current Dillo with FLTK1.3 into > another table at //www.dillo.org/screenshots/? > Once there is no definition about release name, the table title can be > something like "Dillo with FLTK1.3", plus (maybe) something catchy as > "Coming Soon". For the version number, I initially leaned toward 2.3 a little, but now I think I'm leaning toward 3.0 because it's simpler to say "3.x uses 1.3 and runs on [whatever]" than "Starting with 2.3, ..." It'd be interesting to have some screenshots (mostly if anyone contributes ones showing native OSX, if that looks any different from using the X backend) once Jorge decides that there won't be any more UI tweaking. (e.g., will the sizes of the progress boxes depend on their labels? I've noticed that the labels don't fit on occasion, but maybe that's intended to reduce redraws.)

June 10, 2011

Development schedule for version 1.3

by fabio.pasini＠gmail.com

Hi all, >> P.S. Are we going to call Dillo with FLTK1.3 as Dillo3? One >> problem is that on the surface nothing has changed from Dillo2, >> so users will probably get confused. > Probably... Guys, how about putting some images from current Dillo with FLTK1.3 into another table at //www.dillo.org/screenshots/? Once there is no definition about release name, the table title can be something like "Dillo with FLTK1.3", plus (maybe) something catchy as "Coming Soon". My point is, you are all doing a lot of job around FLTK1.3 (Yeah!) and a page update might attract more attention to the project, also helping it to get pushed into distros again :) Best regards, F?bio ps: Great work, folks! 2011/6/9 Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid(a)dillo.org> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 06:16:58PM -0700, Globe Trotter wrote: > > Do we have features/bugs for each milestone documented > > anywhere? http://www.dillo.org/Plans.html is a bit too high > > level. > > That's the place we have. We can't do much better without more > manpower. BTW, I'm surprised on how accurate it became. > > > What comes after 1.3? > > Floating objects! > And maybe some announcements that may surprise our users. > > The point of fltk-1.3 for the Dillo project is to be back in > the distro's repos. This is paramount to us. > > > > I doubt fltk 1.3 will be released on Wednesday: they have yet > > to release their RC7 which was supposed to be June 1, > > It's hard to know when it'll happen. After +5years waiting for > fltk2, I can only hope fltk-1.3 is released soon. FWIW, > development in this branch is very active so it looks like it > could happen soon. > > IIRC, the first estimated release dates were for December 2010. > > > > > > P.S. Are we going to call Dillo with FLTK1.3 as Dillo3? One > > problem is that on the surface nothing has changed from Dillo2, > > so users will probably get confused. > > Probably... > > And possibly the next fltk release will be fltk-3.0, and we > should be able to link against it. > > > > Btw, it is unfathomable to me why weekly fltk2 updates continue > > to be released...... > > C'mon, that's an easy one! > > > >hopefully, fltk1.3 will not be as much of a > > roadblock in terms of facilitating adoption of dillo as fltk2 > > was. > > Recall that since they never hit stable, distros such as > > Fedora did not go for dillo2 (sticking with dillo 0.8.6). > > That's the sad part of the story. > > -- > Cheers > Jorge.- > > _______________________________________________ > Dillo-dev mailing list > Dillo-dev(a)dillo.org > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev >

June 10, 2011

fonts [Re: [Dillo-dev] Development schedule for version 1.3]

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Johannes wrote: > I committed a slightly modified patch that uses our systemFonts > table also for finding the default ui font. I notice that I only have the italic version of URW Chancery L (and a moment of looking things up suggests italic is the only version that exists). If I set font_sans_serif to use it, it is only used for text that should be italicized, whereas dillo2 would use it for any text. I'm not sure whether that's _bad_, exactly, but if we want to or have to stick with this behaviour, it might not make a good default for font_cursive any longer.

June 9, 2011

Development schedule for version 1.3

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jorge wrote: > On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 08:08:15PM +0000, corvid wrote: > > - tab titles > > > > Just cosmetic issues of: They seem too short, the original title of, e.g., > > ctab5, is suboptimal, and the ones without a title tag are initially blank. > > This may be a matter of taste. e.g. Dillo-2.x used "dillo" > instead of a blank title, and allowed longer labels. I like the > current behaviour with fixed length tabs. YMMV. > > "ctab<n>" as label is weird, and should be changed. > > Suggestions? (e.g. tab length, initial string). > Keep it simple please ;-) The case where you open an image. At first the tab title is blank. Then I click another tab and then return to the image. Now it's the beginning of the URL (not that "http://..." is terribly meaningful :)

June 9, 2011

Development schedule for version 1.3

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 06:16:58PM -0700, Globe Trotter wrote: > Do we have features/bugs for each milestone documented > anywhere??http://www.dillo.org/Plans.html is a bit too high > level. That's the place we have. We can't do much better without more manpower. BTW, I'm surprised on how accurate it became. > What comes after 1.3? Floating objects! And maybe some announcements that may surprise our users. The point of fltk-1.3 for the Dillo project is to be back in the distro's repos. This is paramount to us. > I doubt fltk 1.3 will be released on Wednesday: they have yet > to release their RC7 which was supposed to be June 1, It's hard to know when it'll happen. After +5years waiting for fltk2, I can only hope fltk-1.3 is released soon. FWIW, development in this branch is very active so it looks like it could happen soon. IIRC, the first estimated release dates were for December 2010. > > P.S. Are we going to call Dillo with FLTK1.3 as Dillo3? One > problem is that on the surface nothing has changed from Dillo2, > so users will probably get confused. Probably... And possibly the next fltk release will be fltk-3.0, and we should be able to link against it. > Btw, it is unfathomable to me why weekly fltk2 updates continue > to be released...... C'mon, that's an easy one! >hopefully, fltk1.3 will not be as much of a > roadblock in terms of facilitating adoption of dillo as fltk2 > was. > Recall that since they never hit stable, distros such as > Fedora did not go for dillo2 (sticking with dillo 0.8.6). That's the sad part of the story. -- Cheers Jorge.-

June 9, 2011