Re: [Libreoffice] subsequenttest hang ...

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 09/26/2011 11:23 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: >> >> So... my Linux tinderbox hanged again in make check... after only 3 >> green iterations... I have not noticed for 7 hours, nor anyone else >> apparently... > > Would that be >

Re: [Libreoffice] subsequenttest hang ...

On 09/26/2011 11:23 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: So... my Linux tinderbox hanged again in make check... after only 3 green iterations... I have not noticed for 7 hours, nor anyone else apparently... Would that be

Re: [Libreoffice] cppunittester hang when LC_ALL/LANG set

On 09/27/2011 12:47 AM, Miklos Vajna wrote: I just updated my master build on my notebook after about two weeks and the build hanged in sal when I did *not* unset LANG/LC_ALL. First I bisected it: [...] Does this ring any bell? I tried to revert the commit, but it's a large one, and I could not

Re: [Libreoffice] comprehensive binfilter tests?

On 09/26/2011 09:58 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: (And the cost of analysing the regressions, if they are eventually found, will also be rather high, given the aggressive pruning of allegedly dead code in the meantime). Surely git bisect is pretty impervious to the size or number of changes

[Libreoffice] [Bug 35673] LibreOffice 3.4 most annoying bugs

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35673 Rainer Bielefeld changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|34940 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.

Re: [Libreoffice] --enable-werror

I think I wasn't clear. I started doing things in LO when things were a lot harder than they are now. I'm glad for all the community members who have been putting order in this chaos. That experience lead me to believe that the policy should be "make it easy for the n00b". When I tried using t

[Libreoffice] cppunittester hang when LC_ALL/LANG set

Hi Stephan, I just updated my master build on my notebook after about two weeks and the build hanged in sal when I did *not* unset LANG/LC_ALL. First I bisected it: $ git bisect bad 9ffee68dc027662fd8e6aa044d7ee01b0ed5df16 is the first bad commit commit 9ffee68dc027662fd8e6aa044d7ee01b0ed5df

[Libreoffice] [REVIEW] Libreoffice 3.4 crash on screen resize (lp#852819)

Hi all, I found another patch that is on master, but missing on -3-4 (after rootcausing it myself, just to find it being fixed on master). http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/vcl/inc/unx/gtk/gtkdata.hxx?id=8ade517f3d7d30c048cae3bf218e7f4df6ed83d9 To reproduce the issue: - Open Li

Re: [Libreoffice] subsequenttest hang ...

So... my Linux tinderbox hanged again in make check... after only 3 green iterations... I have not noticed for 7 hours, nor anyone else apparently... so clearly running make check is not ready for prime time. I'm turning that off on my box for now. Norbert

[Libreoffice] [Bug 35673] LibreOffice 3.4 most annoying bugs

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35673 Bug 35673 depends on bug 39510, which changed state. Bug 39510 Summary: CRASH closing document with footnotes https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39510 What|Old Value |New Value -

Re: [Libreoffice] clean rebuilds needed

On 09/26/2011 10:01 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:33:03 +0200 Stephan Bergmann wrote: I think its *file based* dependencies that's the problem here -- they are simply not at the right level of granularity. (Then again, I'm not sure there's at all a working theory of makin

[Libreoffice] [PUSHED 3-4] fdo#39510 crash on closing document with footnotes

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:12:38 +0200 Michael Stahl wrote: > if your patch helps then i don't object to it, but i'd really like a > comment in the added line why it's been added (which is certainly > non-obvious here). I take that as a signoff, since the thread here went already way offtopic: http:

Re: [Libreoffice] clean rebuilds needed

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:33:03 +0200 Stephan Bergmann wrote: > I think its *file based* dependencies that's the problem here -- they > are simply not at the right level of granularity. (Then again, I'm > not sure there's at all a working theory of making arbitrary changes > to your source tree an

Re: [Libreoffice] comprehensive binfilter tests?

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 20:37 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > So the chance of regressions remaining undetected for quite a while > is IMO higher here than for other typical code changes. Made more so by the fact that almost no-one uses the filter ;-) > (And the cost of analysing the regr

Re: [Libreoffice] subsequenttest hang ...

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 14:16 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > it is not new. the tendency of smoketest to hang was the reason it was > not run in tinderboxes. Good - so we overcame one problem that can cause this. > For instance. a build (the make itselft, excluding make check) with > ver

Re: [Libreoffice] clean rebuilds needed

On 09/26/2011 07:00 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: The concept of dependencies only get you so far -- the rest is better left to caching (aka ccache). I think its *file based* dependencies that's the problem here -- they are simply not at the right level of granularity. (Then again, I'm not su

Re: [Libreoffice] subsequenttest hang ...

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 09/26/2011 08:24 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: >> >>        Looks like an improvement to me, thanks for that. I wonder why we >> only >> see this now, surely smoketests have died in mid-flow before ? > > Not sure.  Maybe it was indeed always

Re: [Libreoffice] --enable-werror

On 09/26/2011 01:15 PM, Marc-André Laverdière wrote: I tried doing that, but it seems that my autogen flags made it so that I was compiling some module unknown to me that was in 'build warning land'. Unless we don't have modules living in such countries anymore, I won't want to enable that optio

Re: [Libreoffice] subsequenttest hang ...

On 09/26/2011 08:24 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 17:33 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: A timed wait is no solution here. (Timeouts in this kind of code pose at least two problems. For one, they prevent a human from coming back to a hung "make check" after a while, only to fin

Re: [Libreoffice] clean rebuilds needed

Considering that 1/ there are still quite a few module to gbuildified. i.e quite some work to be done involving modification of Makefiles. 2/ tinderboxes don't suffer from that problem because they typically always do full clean rebuild, and therefore provide a hint as to whether or not a problem

Re: [Libreoffice] comprehensive binfilter tests?

On 09/26/2011 11:45 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 10:23 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: With the apparently somewhat semi-automatic code clean-up/removal in binfilter (removing dead code, noticing compiler warnings about thus newly unused variables, thus removing more dead code,

Re: [Libreoffice] Compilation error in svx undefined reference to `XPropertyList::operator delete(void*)'

On 09/26/2011 10:58 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 01:40 -0700, julien2412 wrote: /home/maryline/compile-libreoffice/libo/workdir/unxlngi6/CxxObject/svx/source/tbxctrls/fillctrl.o: In function `~XBitmapList': /home/maryline/compile-libreoffice/libo/svx/inc/svx/xtable.hxx:469: und

Re: [Libreoffice] subsequenttest hang ...

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 17:33 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > A timed wait is no solution here. (Timeouts in this kind of code pose > at least two problems. For one, they prevent a human from coming back > to a hung "make check" after a while, only to find out they no longer > get a clue where

[Libreoffice] accessibility / development ...

Hi guys, If you are discussing development topics, please ensure these are CC'd (or happen on) the developer list. Otherwise, they are liable to get missed / ignored I'm afraid. I'm thinking of the thread: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/accessibility/msg00163.html Tha

Re: [Libreoffice] --enable-werror

Hi Michael, On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:40:26 +0100 Michael Meeks wrote: > The 'good old' days - where all work had to be done in a > branch, and then compiled on two platforms before merging is *gone* > (and -very- good riddance). I'll personally stamp on anything that > smells like an attempt

Re: [Libreoffice] clean rebuilds needed

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:43:41 +0100 Caolán McNamara wrote: > I suppose we'd always be stuck with on incremental builds with e.g. > header removals where the header remains in the solver, and/or a .so > to .a changes, where the .so remain behind. Well, those cases might be solvable actually: gbuil

Re: [Libreoffice] clean rebuilds needed

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:49:22 +0100 Caolán McNamara wrote: > I *suppose* it would be madness to have dependency rules on the > makefiles themselves that anything created by the makefiles is out of > date when the makefiles change ? *In theory* that would be roughly possible with gbuild because th

Re: [Libreoffice] [REVIEW 3-4] fdo#39510 crash on closing document with footnotes

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:48:26 +0200 Mathias Bauer wrote: > The biggest part of the work is getting the right picture: which > objects control the life time of others and which just need to know > if some other objects are present or not. ^- That is the hard part. And the one with the biggest boon

[Libreoffice] [Bug 35673] LibreOffice 3.4 most annoying bugs

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35673 --- Comment #205 from Alex Thurgood 2011-09-26 09:41:55 PDT --- Nominating bug 38177 because of the data loss issue. Alex -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because:

[Libreoffice] [Bug 35673] LibreOffice 3.4 most annoying bugs

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35673 Alex Thurgood changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||38177 -- Configure bugmail: https://bug

Re: [Libreoffice] subsequenttest hang ...

On 09/24/2011 12:48 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: I'm poking at an endless hang in the smoketest: #12 0xb7d24aec in pthread_cond_wait@@GLIBC_2.3.2 () from /lib/libc.so.6 #3 0xb7f1b6c0 in osl_waitCondition () from /data/opt/libreoffice/core/solver/unxlngi6.pro/lib/libuno_sal.so.3 #4 0xb72db42a in o

Re: [Libreoffice] Next version and grammar options

Caolán McNamara wrote: > > Where does the source to lightproof live ?, e.g. if people wanted to > contribute to it to try and fill out those missing pieces. > AFAIK there is no repository at the moment. I report bugs and make proposals here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/lightproof Two months ag

Re: [Libreoffice] Base Development

Le 25/09/11 22:25, Ferry Toth a écrit : Hi Ferry, all, > - same for Mysql (this I am not sure of) I have now built the mysql native connector with master branch source for Mac OSX and Linux 32bit (Xbuntu Natty). They are available for download on the Extensions beta web site. Whilst both c

Re: [Libreoffice] Next version and grammar options

On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 03:02 -0700, Olivier R. wrote: > There are other grammar checkers, especially Lightproof, written in Python, > which provide a toolkit to build your own grammar checker, which can > retrieve informations from the Hunspell dictionaries (Hunspell and > Lightproof were both crea

Re: [Libreoffice] clean rebuilds needed

That's going to make it painful for makefile hackers, since every time you change the makefile, it will run a "make clean" command. Not saying you shouldn't do it, just that you might need a disable flag for this behaviour. -- Noel Grandin Michael Meeks wrote: > On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 12:49 +0

Re: [Libreoffice] clean rebuilds needed

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 13:30 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: > On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 12:49 +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote: > > I *suppose* it would be madness to have dependency rules on the > > makefiles themselves that anything created by the makefiles is out of > > date when the makefiles change ? > >

Re: [Libreoffice] Sundry bugs

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 14:37 +0700, Brian Wilson wrote: > Hi all, > > I don't know which of these are bugs are which are features... > > Anyway, I noticed that LO 3.4.3 is still showing a 2000, 2010 copyright. > Shouldn't that be 2011? Dialog is tidied up in master IIRC. > I just reported the bu

Re: [Libreoffice] clean rebuilds needed

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 12:49 +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote: > I *suppose* it would be madness to have dependency rules on the > makefiles themselves that anything created by the makefiles is out of > date when the makefiles change ? :-) sounds reasonable enough. Of course its more than the

Re: [Libreoffice] Pb with lightproof

Sorry, I'll just be able to tell you if "make dev-install" or a build in smoketoo_native works. I'm not the one who could validate this change because I don't know what could be the different impacts of these changes. Does anyone could answer ? Julien. -- View this message in context: http://na

Re: [Libreoffice] Pb with lightproof

Hi! Thank you for the fix! The extension naming and copy to the solver done in download script: # Extensions copy echo "Copy extensions to their location ..." for pack in $BARCODE_EXTENSION_PACK $DIAGRAM_EXTENSION_PACK $VALIDATOR_EXTENSION_PACK $WATCH_WINDOW_EXTENSION_PACK $NUMBERTEXT_EXTENSION_

Re: [Libreoffice] Easy Hack String replacement: SearchAndReplace

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 09:43 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 09/26/2011 01:30 AM, Neil Leathers wrote: > I was looking into the > Easy Hacks: "Removal/Replacement of the String/UniString/ByteString > with OUString/OString once and for all" and ran into needing to > translate a SearchAndReplac

[Libreoffice] [PATCH][PUSHED] Fix for fdo#39898: don't crash on some invalid MathML objects

On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 22:36 +0400, Ivan Timofeev wrote: > 2011/9/23 Caolán McNamara : > > Looks sane to me. A good catch, pushed now. > > He-he, I forgot to consider absolutely crazy cases - if > element is empty at all. Should this be fixed? Probably, can't ever be too safe on anything which is

Re: [Libreoffice] clean rebuilds needed

On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 23:53 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > My recent commit to start undoing the basis/brand split, > > > makes it necessary to do clean rebuilds on non-Windows, as the RPATHs of

Re: [Libreoffice] comprehensive binfilter tests?

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 10:23 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > With the apparently somewhat semi-automatic code clean-up/removal in > binfilter (removing dead code, noticing compiler warnings about thus > newly unused variables, thus removing more dead code, ...), I wonder > whether this does not

Re: [Libreoffice] --enable-werror

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 11:40 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: > We had a situation for several days with master giving tens of > thousands of warnings while building. --enable-werror is a tricky thing alright given the different compilers, even within the gcc family, or maybe especially within the gcc

Re: [Libreoffice] --enable-werror

I tried doing that, but it seems that my autogen flags made it so that I was compiling some module unknown to me that was in 'build warning land'. Unless we don't have modules living in such countries anymore, I won't want to enable that option. I see this flag as an aspirational goal "let us fix

[Libreoffice] goodbye ( nearly ) msocximex.[ch]xx

with the following commits http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=f8f54cbb5d6a34ea74c4e92a3bdb8e34b7b101d6 http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=5609c512cd4d2899300b432d88d93cff05a05c87 http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=590d9596c54443dc6b65

Re: [Libreoffice] Base Development

On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 22:25 +0200, Ferry Toth wrote: > I totally agree. We use base ... > In my opinion Base is pretty good ... Please can we continue anything that is not a concrete discussion of base's code, patches, fixes etc. (ie. development) on the discuss list omitting the (already

Re: [Libreoffice] --enable-werror

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 12:04 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > You mean, you let > > > "hide a WaE... should be fixed properly when the issue is understood" > through Wait - is this the e

Re: [Libreoffice] --enable-werror

On 09/26/2011 11:22 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi Stephan, On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 08:41 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: Just a friendly reminder that all developers should use --enable-werror all the time. This is a nice idea of course :-) but some platforms spew errors constantly beyond

Re: [Libreoffice] comprehensive binfilter tests?

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 10:23 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > With the apparently somewhat semi-automatic code clean-up/removal in > binfilter (removing dead code, noticing compiler warnings about thus > newly unused variables, thus removing more dead code, ...), I wonder > whether this does not

Re: [Libreoffice] --enable-werror

Hi Stephan, On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 08:41 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > Just a friendly reminder that all developers should use --enable-werror > all the time. This is a nice idea of course :-) but some platforms spew errors constantly beyond the control of the developer. IMHO it is bes

[Libreoffice] [PUSHED] cppcheck: unused variables

On Sat, 2011-09-24 at 21:51 +0700, Korrawit Pruegsanusak wrote: > Attached patch will remove unused variables detected by cppcheck. I've > opengrok'ed ExtEntry and it isn't used anywhere else. Pushed - thanks ! :-) Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Enginee

[Libreoffice] [PUSHED] Change pure assertion to .is()

On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 15:00 +0700, Korrawit Pruegsanusak wrote: > More cleanup like > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=24bd2b363a8e9981a3583dfb190161ab335ee870 > is attached. Please feel free to comment. Thanks; found fixed on master ! Michael. --

Re: [Libreoffice] Compilation error in svx undefined reference to `XPropertyList::operator delete(void*)'

Hi Julien, On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 01:40 -0700, julien2412 wrote: > /home/maryline/compile-libreoffice/libo/workdir/unxlngi6/CxxObject/svx/source/tbxctrls/fillctrl.o: > In function `~XBitmapList': > /home/maryline/compile-libreoffice/libo/svx/inc/svx/xtable.hxx:469: > undefined reference to `XProper

[Libreoffice] [PATCH] Win32 warning cleanup ...

On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 14:28 +, ke...@suse.cz wrote: > One of you broke the build of LibreOffice with your commit :-( > Please commit and push a fix ASAP! So - while I was digging for this, I noticed and cleaned up a number of Win32 related errors and warnings; since I can't easily test

[Libreoffice] comprehensive binfilter tests?

With the apparently somewhat semi-automatic code clean-up/removal in binfilter (removing dead code, noticing compiler warnings about thus newly unused variables, thus removing more dead code, ...), I wonder whether this does not introduce regressions. Do we have some comprehensive test suite f

Re: [Libreoffice] WaE in chart2/source/controller/main/ShapeController.cxx

Hi Norbert, On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 11:08 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > I'm quite confused with > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/diff/chart2/source/controller/main/ShapeController.cxx?id=c8dc7372088a13187865cd0d69b64af6b4b5 :-) > that create a WaE due to pColor bein

Re: [Libreoffice] gcc bug reduction script....

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Jan was demoing a particularly sexy gcc bug code reduction script at > the OpenSUSE conference, that would remove code at random and reduce the > size of the problem to a manageable test-case. > > Since we find / provoke a n

Re: [Libreoffice] Easy Hack String replacement: SearchAndReplace

On 09/26/2011 01:30 AM, Neil Leathers wrote: I was looking into the Easy Hacks: "Removal/Replacement of the String/UniString/ByteString with OUString/OString once and for all" and ran into needing to translate a SearchAndReplaceAscii. Before launching into this set I wanted to confirm that ins

[Libreoffice] Sundry bugs

Hi all, I don't know which of these are bugs are which are features... Anyway, I noticed that LO 3.4.3 is still showing a 2000, 2010 copyright. Shouldn't that be 2011? I just reported the bug 41209 regarding the missing Thai, Lao and Khmer language choices in font selection. What I really want

Re: [Libreoffice] [REVIEW 3-4] fdo#39510 crash on closing document with footnotes

On 09/25/2011 01:48 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote: The differentiation between hard and soft refererences would require a solid understanding of the relationships of all objects. With this understanding you could most probably fix the existing code without refcounting also: a weak reference always coul