Peter Young, on 2 Jun, wrote:

> On 2 Jun 2014  David Pitt <pit...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Harriet Bazley, on 2 Jun, wrote:
> 
> > > Of recent weeks I've increasingly found that Google searches are not
> > > rendering in Netsurf, especially when you try to view a second or
> > > subsequent page of search results: the window just hangs there with
> > > the progress indicator moving instead of the usual almost instant
> > > return. Clicking on the same link again to force another fetch seems
> > > to be the only way to get the results.
> >> 
> > > Is anyone else seeing this, or is it my ISP?
> >> 
> > > (Netsurf v1932, JS disabled)
> >> 
> > A quick test did reproduce this, v1920, Java Script not disabled,
> > adverts hidden. Plusnet.
> 
> Has anyone reported this to he bug site? If nobody else does I'll do it
> later today.

It would be useful if we could capture the stoppage in a log.

Am I right in guessing that the numbers at the start of each log line are
time from start. If so this may, or may not, be relevant.

(62.230000) content/llcache.c llcache_clean 2892: discarding stale cacheable
object with no users or pending fetches (0x6599afa0)
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=elephant&hl=en-GB&gbv=1&ie=UTF-8&prmd=ivns&ei=sTyMU9arK6iy0QWU-YCQBg&start=10&sa=N
(62.230000) content/llcache.c llcache_object_destroy 855: Destroying object
0x6599afa0
(62.230000) content/llcache.c llcache_clean 2892: discarding stale cacheable
object with no users or pending fetches (0x659bdd18)
http://www.google.co.uk/search?ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=elephant&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1
(62.240000) content/llcache.c llcache_object_destroy 855: Destroying object
0x659bdd18
(62.240000) content/llcache.c llcache_clean 2999: Size: 416906
(82.240000) content/content.c content_destroy 388: content 0x65fbc100
x-ns-css:5
(82.240000) content/llcache.c llcache_object_remove_user 321: Removing user
0x65c6ff30 from 0x65c6f8f0
(82.240000) content/llcache.c llcache_object_user_destroy 277: Destroyed
user 0x65c6ff30

I will dig a bit more.

-- 
David Pitt

Reply via email to