- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Valgrind errors from downloads.cc

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jeremy wrote: > Valgrind is reporting uninitialised data in DLItem::update() in > downloads.cc[1]. Here's the code with the offending lines (705, 706) > marked. > > /* Rate */ > if (csec >= 2) { > tsec = (float) (curr_time - twosec_time); > ! rate = ((float)(curr_bytesize-twosec_bytesize) / 1024) / tsec; > ! snprintf(str, 64, (rate < 100) ? "%.1fK/s" : "%.0fK/s", rate); > prRate->copy_label(str); > prRate->redraw_label(); > } > > I'm wondering what is happening here. DLItem::update() is scheduled > to be run every second. I think that twosec_time is only set to an > initialised value when the function has been run at least twice > before. Also, csec is calculated from the difference between the > current time and the initial time. Is it possible that the "csec >= > 2" could be true even when the function has been run only once before? > After all, the timing of callbacks is never exact. Perhaps the > callback should explicitly count how many times it has been called > rather than attempt to work it out from the timing? (The list software never did send me a copy of your msg...) Would something like the following work? --- a/dpi/downloads.cc Tue Jan 11 01:18:28 2011 +0000 +++ b/dpi/downloads.cc Sun Feb 06 20:40:53 2011 +0000 @@ -318,6 +318,8 @@ // Init value. Reset later, upon the first data bytes arrival init_time = time(NULL); + twosec_time = onesec_time = init_time; + // BUG:? test a URL with ' inside. /* escape "'" character for the shell. Is it necessary? */ esc_url = Escape_uri_str(url, "'"); > [1] > http://starurchin.org/dillo/valgrind.html > http://starurchin.org/dillo/valgrind/6444c6ff40e01e517ce6e802f23670c5422c6e… > http://starurchin.org/dillo/valgrind/68bd8732669bbac8e11f1ea5a692db022fc6a6… > http://starurchin.org/dillo/valgrind/6f1d6a4feadf8136cbed37497a1d6dbbfea4a3… > http://starurchin.org/dillo/valgrind/68026e750cc92b08699c26392ecfd92cf370a9… >

Feb. 9, 2011

Valgrind errors from downloads.cc

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

Valgrind is reporting uninitialised data in DLItem::update() in downloads.cc[1]. Here's the code with the offending lines (705, 706) marked. /* Rate */ if (csec >= 2) { tsec = (float) (curr_time - twosec_time); ! rate = ((float)(curr_bytesize-twosec_bytesize) / 1024) / tsec; ! snprintf(str, 64, (rate < 100) ? "%.1fK/s" : "%.0fK/s", rate); prRate->copy_label(str); prRate->redraw_label(); } I'm wondering what is happening here. DLItem::update() is scheduled to be run every second. I think that twosec_time is only set to an initialised value when the function has been run at least twice before. Also, csec is calculated from the difference between the current time and the initial time. Is it possible that the "csec >= 2" could be true even when the function has been run only once before? After all, the timing of callbacks is never exact. Perhaps the callback should explicitly count how many times it has been called rather than attempt to work it out from the timing? Regards, Jeremy Henty [1] http://starurchin.org/dillo/valgrind.html http://starurchin.org/dillo/valgrind/6444c6ff40e01e517ce6e802f23670c5422c6e… http://starurchin.org/dillo/valgrind/68bd8732669bbac8e11f1ea5a692db022fc6a6… http://starurchin.org/dillo/valgrind/6f1d6a4feadf8136cbed37497a1d6dbbfea4a3… http://starurchin.org/dillo/valgrind/68026e750cc92b08699c26392ecfd92cf370a9…

Feb. 7, 2011

for 1.3 port, latest fltk snapshot is required

by corvid＠lavabit.com

..because we're using some new stuff that they added for us http://fltk.org/newsgroups.php?s23204+gfltk.general+v23210+T0

Feb. 4, 2011

Mouse Wheel 80-90% slower then Seamonkey?

by rogerx.oss＠gmail.com

Anybody else notice the mouse wheel is slow within Dillo? Comparing dillo_port1.3 to Seamonkey, dillo_port1.3 is almost 80-90% slower compared to Seamonkey. Comparing dillo_port1.3 to dillo, dillo_port1.3 is slower by approx. 50%. -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/

Feb. 4, 2011