- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Re: dpid

by Jorge Arellano Cid

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Ferdi Franceschini wrote: > Hi Jorge, > > On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:25:20AM -0300, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > > > Hi Ferdi, > > > > I've catched an API problem inside the capi/cache that may be > > the cause for the fork-hog. This note is just to keep you from > > wasting time reviewing it. I'll write to you soon. > Great. It _was_ the cause! There was a race condition hidden behind the lack of dpi-cache connection (the part we blamed) and a slightly broken API (the cloaked problem). As a matter of fact this bug had remained unnoticed maybe for years. In my patched tree (which is under test), the bug is fixed (both parts) and dillo works even better than before. > I think I have a new solution to the inf loop caused when a connection is not > accepted on a dpi socket for any reason. This new solution does not require > any code changes to the plugins. I will post more info to dillo-dev but I need > to experiment a bit first. That's good news. Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 9, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] wanted: CPU overhead source.

by Frank de Lange

BTW, The new kbnav patch is NOT on the site yet, wait for the announcement before you try to download it... Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank(a)unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]

Dec. 5, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] wanted: CPU overhead source.

by Frank de Lange

Related to this, I have a new version (probably the last, announcement to follow) of the kbnav patch which solves some performance issues related to g_list_search_custom(). This function, which caused an enormous overhead, has been eliminated from the patch alltogether in favor of a hashtable-based search. Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank(a)unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]

Dec. 5, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] wanted: CPU overhead source.

by Johannes Hofmann

Hi Jorge, On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 10:43:34AM -0300, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > I could not yet get any reproducible results from profiling, > > !? > > Doesn't it show any function usage-ratio/run-time change? > Ok, I redid the profiling on my slower Linux box with utilities.html. Html_cleanup_tag is called more often in cvs version (16742 vs. 10749) and seems quite a bit slower than in 0.7.3. See gprof output below. Hope that helps, Johannes PS: Of course I can send you the whole gprof output, but it is quite large, so I did not want to send the whole thing to the list. ================================= current cvs ============================: Flat profile: Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. % cumulative self self total time seconds seconds calls us/call us/call name 12.24 0.24 0.24 27862 8.61 8.61 Html_get_attr2 11.73 0.47 0.23 58152 3.96 6.88 Dw_page_real_word_wrap 8.67 0.64 0.17 16742 10.15 12.71 Html_cleanup_tag 5.61 0.75 0.11 61 1803.28 6299.81 Html_write_raw 4.59 0.84 0.09 354712 0.25 0.25 a_Dw_widget_get_type 4.59 0.93 0.09 14073 6.40 13.90 p_Dw_widget_queue_resize 3.06 0.99 0.06 15306 3.92 3.92 Dw_page_add_line 3.06 1.05 0.06 2207 27.19 27.52 Dw_page_get_extremes 2.55 1.10 0.05 15980 3.13 6.77 Html_process_space 2.55 1.15 0.05 5993 8.34 8.34 Html_push_tag 2.04 1.19 0.04 121087 0.33 0.33 a_Dw_page_get_type 1.53 1.22 0.03 77221 0.39 0.40 Dw_page_get_word_extremes 1.53 1.25 0.03 58845 0.51 0.80 Dw_page_mark_change 1.53 1.28 0.03 23886 1.26 1.26 a_Dw_gtk_viewport_get_type 1.53 1.31 0.03 13499 2.22 12.24 Html_process_word 1.53 1.34 0.03 6883 4.36 4.36 a_Dw_style_new 1.53 1.37 0.03 1887 15.90 129.82 Html_tag_open_table_cell 1.53 1.40 0.03 1887 15.90 39.66 a_Dw_table_add_cell 1.53 1.43 0.03 Dw_page_destroy 1.53 1.46 0.03 Dw_table_size_request 1.02 1.48 0.02 58440 0.34 0.34 Html_tag_compare 1.02 1.50 0.02 19938 1.00 1.00 Dw_page_add_word 1.02 1.52 0.02 16527 1.21 9.69 a_Dw_page_add_text 1.02 1.54 0.02 15155 1.32 1.32 a_Dw_page_add_space 1.02 1.56 0.02 13003 1.54 61.50 Html_process_tag 1.02 1.58 0.02 13003 1.54 3.08 Html_tag_index 1.02 1.60 0.02 8499 2.35 2.77 a_Dw_widget_size_request 1.02 1.62 0.02 6883 2.91 2.91 Dw_style_remove 1.02 1.64 0.02 6151 3.25 3.58 Dw_page_forall 1.02 1.66 0.02 3380 5.92 88.16 Dw_page_rewrap 1.02 1.68 0.02 2729 7.33 17.85 Dw_container_destroy 1.02 1.70 0.02 858 23.31 108.94 Html_tag_open_tr 0.51 1.71 0.01 28657 0.35 0.35 a_Dw_container_get_type 0.51 1.72 0.01 16527 0.61 0.61 Dw_page_calc_text_size 0.51 1.73 0.01 16383 0.61 0.61 a_Dw_table_get_type 0.51 1.74 0.01 8016 1.25 1.25 a_Url_str 0.51 1.75 0.01 6159 1.62 1.62 a_Dw_widget_set_ascent 0.51 1.76 0.01 5993 1.67 6.50 Html_eventually_pop_dw 0.51 1.77 0.01 5993 1.67 14.38 Html_tag_cond_cleanup <snip> ----------------------------------------------- 0.00 0.00 69/16742 Html_tag_open_dt [77] 0.00 0.00 426/16742 Html_par_push_tag [88] 0.00 0.00 480/16742 Html_tag_open_dd [68] 0.01 0.00 681/16742 Html_tag_open_table [23] 0.03 0.01 3432/16742 Html_tag_open_tr [19] 0.06 0.01 5661/16742 Html_tag_open_td [7] 0.06 0.02 5993/16742 Html_tag_cond_cleanup [22] [12] 10.9 0.17 0.04 16742 Html_cleanup_tag [12] 0.01 0.03 5993/5993 Html_eventually_pop_dw [37] 0.00 0.00 1314/6883 Dw_style_remove [63] 0.00 0.00 16742/16742 Html_match_tag [227] ----------------------------------------------- ========================== 0.7.3 ===========================: Flat profile: Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. % cumulative self self total time seconds seconds calls us/call us/call name 13.71 0.27 0.27 58152 4.64 7.26 Dw_page_real_word_wrap 10.66 0.48 0.21 24525 8.56 8.56 Html_get_attr2 6.60 0.61 0.13 333652 0.39 0.39 a_Dw_widget_get_type 4.57 0.70 0.09 116585 0.77 0.77 a_Dw_page_get_type 3.55 0.77 0.07 19938 3.51 3.51 Dw_page_add_word 3.55 0.84 0.07 61 1147.54 6345.30 Html_write_raw 2.54 0.89 0.05 Dw_page_destroy 2.54 0.94 0.05 Dw_page_size_allocate 2.03 0.98 0.04 58440 0.68 0.68 Html_tag_compare 2.03 1.02 0.04 15304 2.61 2.61 Dw_page_add_line 2.03 1.06 0.04 10749 3.72 4.44 Html_cleanup_tag 2.03 1.10 0.04 5993 6.67 6.67 Html_push_tag 2.03 1.14 0.04 Dw_table_size_request 1.52 1.17 0.03 77221 0.39 0.41 Dw_page_get_word_extremes 1.52 1.20 0.03 51991 0.58 1.26 Dw_page_mark_change 1.52 1.23 0.03 16527 1.82 12.58 a_Dw_page_add_text 1.52 1.26 0.03 15980 1.88 6.64 Html_process_space 1.52 1.29 0.03 13499 2.22 15.57 Html_process_word 1.52 1.32 0.03 12896 2.33 12.23 p_Dw_widget_queue_resize 1.52 1.35 0.03 8499 3.53 4.17 a_Dw_widget_size_request 1.52 1.38 0.03 6883 4.36 4.36 a_Dw_style_new 1.52 1.41 0.03 3238 9.26 17.79 Dw_page_calc_widget_size 1.52 1.44 0.03 2207 13.59 14.37 Dw_page_get_extremes 1.52 1.47 0.03 1362 22.03 29.75 Dw_table_sub_calc_col_widt 1.02 1.49 0.02 28654 0.70 0.70 a_Dw_container_get_type 1.02 1.51 0.02 15155 1.32 1.32 a_Dw_page_add_space 1.02 1.53 0.02 6883 2.91 2.91 Dw_style_remove 1.02 1.55 0.02 5135 3.89 12.34 Html_pop_tag 1.02 1.57 0.02 2117 9.45 9.45 a_Url_free 1.02 1.59 0.02 1784 11.21 11.21 Url_object_new 1.02 1.61 0.02 858 23.31 74.05 Html_tag_open_tr 1.02 1.63 0.02 681 29.37 158.58 Html_tag_open_table 1.02 1.65 0.02 Cache_url_hash 0.51 1.66 0.01 22704 0.44 0.44 a_Dw_gtk_viewport_get_type 0.51 1.67 0.01 16565 0.60 0.60 Html_match_tag 0.51 1.68 0.01 16383 0.61 0.61 a_Dw_table_get_type 0.51 1.69 0.01 13003 0.77 48.25 Html_process_tag 0.51 1.70 0.01 13003 0.77 3.85 Html_tag_index 0.51 1.71 0.01 8345 1.20 1.20 a_Url_str 0.51 1.72 0.01 6150 1.63 2.40 Dw_page_forall 0.51 1.73 0.01 6130 1.63 2.07 Dw_widget_update_cursor 0.51 1.74 0.01 6130 1.63 4.11 a_Dw_widget_unrealize 0.51 1.75 0.01 5312 1.88 7.02 Html_eventually_pop_dw 0.51 1.76 0.01 4383 2.28 2.28 a_Bitvec_free 0.51 1.77 0.01 3380 2.96 96.27 Dw_page_rewrap 0.51 1.78 0.01 3067 3.26 4.04 a_Dw_widget_size_allocate 0.51 1.79 0.01 3065 3.26 12.33 a_Dw_widget_realize 0.51 1.80 0.01 3064 3.26 3.96 Dw_container_remove <snip> ----------------------------------------------- 0.00 0.00 69/10749 Html_tag_open_dt [140] 0.00 0.00 426/10749 Html_par_push_tag [110] 0.00 0.00 480/10749 Html_tag_open_dd [78] 0.00 0.00 681/10749 Html_tag_open_table [17] 0.01 0.00 3432/10749 Html_tag_open_tr [27] 0.02 0.00 5661/10749 Html_tag_open_td [9] [35] 2.4 0.04 0.01 10749 Html_cleanup_tag [35] 0.01 0.00 10749/16565 Html_match_tag [93] 0.00 0.00 177/5312 Html_eventually_pop_dw [44]

Dec. 5, 2003

Re: dead link behavior

by Peter Milne

dillo-0.7.3.tar.bz2 is the Freebsd ported version of Dillo. No IPv6 I'll do something else...suggestion? :o) -- ~~~Pete~~~ http://milneweb.com http://nomorevirus.com

Dec. 5, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] dead link behavior

by Jorge Arellano Cid

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Peter Milne wrote: > > This is what Jorge Arellano Cid wrote prior to this response: > > > > >> > >> If I click a link and it turns out to be a dead link.....everything > >> locks > >> up hard and I have to 'xkill' Dillo. > > > > Definitely not normal. Anyway to reproduce it? [snip] > Sure thing, let me click on a dead link. Example: > > (Thu 13:44) happy %dillo > Setting locale to C... > dillo_dns_init: Here we go! > Enabling cookies as from cookiesrc... > Nav_open_url: Url=>about:splash< > Nav_open_url: Url=>http://www2.bsdhound.org< > Dns_server [0]: www2.bsdhound.org is 0x814fe78 > Connecting to 12.*.*.* > > > And there it hangs...... Doesn't happen here. Are you using 0.7.3 or CVS? With IPv6 or default? Has anyone seen this bug? Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 5, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Frames

by Ralph Slooten

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:32:17 -0700 (MST) "Peter Milne" <peter(a)milneweb.com> wrote: > Tell me, if I recall, there is a way to view frames in > Dillo...correct? Would love to use it for Squirrelmail. Would > actually be willing to use another web based, imap mail client too. Tried searching the archives? LOL. The standard dillo does not (yet?) support frames, however Frank de Lange has provided patches for quite a while now on his site. http://www.geocities.com/ikbenfrank/ Greetings Ralph -- http://axljab.homelinux.org/ "...the software said Win95 or better, so I installed Linux"

Dec. 5, 2003

Frames

by Peter Milne

Tell me, if I recall, there is a way to view frames in Dillo...correct? Would love to use it for Squirrelmail. Would actually be willing to use another web based, imap mail client too. -- ~~~Pete~~~ http://milneweb.com http://nomorevirus.com

Dec. 5, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] gcc 2.95 doesn't know about -Wno-unused-parameter

by David McKee

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, David McKee wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, David McKee wrote: > > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > > > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Andreas Schweitzer wrote: > > > [attribution to me lost] > > > > > > my gcc doesn't believe in -Wno-unused-parameters, > > > [snip] > > > > > Attached is a patch > > > [snip] > > > > Commited. > > > > Does it work for you David? [snip] > > I tried it on my work machine. > > > > The Redhat box actual uses: > > > > $ gcc -v > > Reading specs from > > /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/specs > > gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release) [snip] > I commited a patch that tests for gcc version 3. > Please test it and tell us. Worked on both machines. Very nice. -- -- David McKee -- dmckee(a)jlab.org -- (757) 269-7492 (Office)

Dec. 5, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] gcc 2.95 doesn't know about -Wno-unused-parameter

by Jorge Arellano Cid

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, David McKee wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, David McKee wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Andreas Schweitzer wrote: > > [attribution to me lost] > > > > > my gcc doesn't believe in -Wno-unused-parameters, > > [snip] > > > > Attached is a patch > > [snip] > > > Commited. > > > Does it work for you David? > > > Perfectly. Thanks. > > Having said that on the basis of my gcc 2.95 based debian machine at home, > I tried it on my work machine. > > The Redhat box actual uses: > > $ gcc -v > Reading specs from > /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/egcs-2.91.66/specs > gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release) > > *sigh* > [...] > Style question: > > Would it be better to test for the presence of the flag than to try to > exclude those compilers without it? Yes, that's the right way to do it, but I don't know how yet :) I commited a patch that tests for gcc version 3. Please test it and tell us. Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 4, 2003