Re: [Libreoffice] 3.5 release from QA to point-zero
Cor, On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Cor Nouws wrote: > - How much time can one annoying bug ask? Two day, two weeks? > e.g. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40466#c10 Hmm... I don't see the relevance of my comment in the bug to what you are stating here. What do you mean by your first statement? Kohei ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] building release tarballs
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Neil Leathers wrote: >> > I am trying to find instruction for how to build the released stable >> > source. I have downloaded the files located at >> > http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/src/3.4.3 and am trying >> > to find further instructions. Where is the process to build from released >> > source instead of from development source control documented? >> >> it is not well documented AFAIK. you would need to download the 19 or >> so tar.gz 9one for each git repos we had in the 3.4 series. untar >> bootstrap, create a directory named 'clone' in bootstrap (if not >> already there) and then untar the other repos in clone/ >> then you need to run ./bin/create_boostrap_links > > That is exactly what I am trying to not do. I wish to build the released > version 3.4.3 from the released source. If I can build LibreOffice from the > source archives that are released, labelled, and > signed as the official source I would like to do so. > If it is never possible to build LibreOffice from the source archives [snip] I think I gave you 2 different ways to do just that... maybe I'm not understanding what you seek. Norbert ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [REVIEW] Speed up range name lookup from formula interpreter
Hi Eike, On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Eike Rathke wrote: > On Friday, 2011-09-02 17:13:22 -0400, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > >> I'd like to have the attached patch reviewed and pushed to the -3-4 >> branch. > > That would also need > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=0bf8fd627afc8567ae8ec6fad8edf20a11f143ad Yup. Good catch on both points, Eike! > I didn't test with any Excel document yet to verify. Actually > I currently have zero original Excel documents ;) I'll have to copy the > testcase farm of the old OOo tree Daniel used to maintain [should do > that while they are still there..] Yup. That would be very helpful for our future testing needs. We actually keep our suite of test documents in http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/contrib/test-files/ but we need more test documents to cover more cases. It would be nice to migrate Daniel's test documents into this repository. > Apart from the anomalies and crashes I fixed I didn't encounter other > glitches. Sounds good. So, do you think that these two commits combined (my original and your fix) would be safe enough to be backported to the stable (3.4) branch, or ...? What's your opinion? Kohei ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] building release tarballs
> > I am trying to find instruction for how to build the released stable > > source. I have downloaded the files located at > > http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/src/3.4.3 and am trying > > to find further instructions. Where is the process to build from released > > source instead of from development source control documented? > > it is not well documented AFAIK. you would need to download the 19 or > so tar.gz 9one for each git repos we had in the 3.4 series. untar > bootstrap, create a directory named 'clone' in bootstrap (if not > already there) and then untar the other repos in clone/ > then you need to run ./bin/create_boostrap_links That is exactly what I am trying to not do. I wish to build the released version 3.4.3 from the released source. If I can build LibreOffice from the source archives that are released, labelled, and signed as the official source I would like to do so. If it is never possible to build LibreOffice from the source archives that is called the official source please point me at the released, versioned and signed archives that I need. Thanks, Neil Leathers ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Patch] new BITxxx functions for ODF 1.2
Hi libo, On Sunday, 2011-09-04 11:28:58 +0200, l...@pechlaner.at wrote: > I've made the new Functions BITAND, BITOR, BITXOR BITRSHIFT > and BITLSHIFT,, how declared in the ODF 1.2 specification. Can anyone > have a look on this Patches. Great! I'll take a look at them tomorrow or the day after. Eike -- PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication. Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Bringing some sanity to interline spacing
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 02:39:37PM +0200, Eike Rathke wrote: > > But before going there, I just need to make sure that we are on the same > > page wrt keeping the new algorithm and moving on to fixing whatever > > needs fixing. > > I'm not sure we want to keep the new algorithm as default, given that > there are probably many areas in several applications to be adapted to > the new behavior. Maybe best we make that an option until necessary > changes are done. Opinions? That fine with me, even having the new algorithm as an off by default option would be fine. Regards, Khaled -- Khaled Hosny Egyptian Arab signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [REVIEW] Speed up range name lookup from formula interpreter
Hi Kohei, On Friday, 2011-09-02 17:13:22 -0400, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > I'd like to have the attached patch reviewed and pushed to the -3-4 > branch. That would also need http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=0bf8fd627afc8567ae8ec6fad8edf20a11f143ad > It makes range name lookups by index a constant time which drastically > improves formula calculation performance especially with documents with > a larger number of named ranges. This also improves the import > performance of binary Excel documents since the xls import filter > currently re-uses the range name storage to emulate shared formulas. I didn't test with any Excel document yet to verify. Actually I currently have zero original Excel documents ;) I'll have to copy the testcase farm of the old OOo tree Daniel used to maintain [should do that while they are still there..] Apart from the anomalies and crashes I fixed I didn't encounter other glitches. Eike -- PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication. Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Mailing list content filter (was: Re: (no subject))
Hi Thorsten, On Sunday, 2011-09-04 15:26:29 +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Eike Rathke wrote: > > > Yep, just adapted the setup accordingly. Note that the surrounding > > > messages will still be delivered (that might annoy people who've > > > previously had downstream filters for exactly those attachments). > > > > As me.. > > > Heh, you asked for it... ;) I'm not complaining ;) Hopefully Mailman inserts some useful text that could trigger a recipe. > > Do we need really .zip? Btw, that seems to be a negative list, > > disallowing specified extensions, there are umpteen extensions Windows > > regards as executable.. wouldn't it be better to have a positive list > > instead? > > > Mailman 2.1.11 does not permit that. If you have more extensions, > please list them - otherwise, we can extend the list with each new > incident. There's a bunch at http://antivirus.about.com/od/securitytips/a/fileextview.htm Eike -- PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication. Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] building release tarballs
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Neil Leathers wrote: > I am trying to find instruction for how to build the released stable source. > I have downloaded the files located at > http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/src/3.4.3 and am trying to > find further instructions. Where is the process to build from released source > instead of from development source control documented? it is not well documented AFAIK. you would need to download the 19 or so tar.gz 9one for each git repos we had in the 3.4 series. untar bootstrap, create a directory named 'clone' in bootstrap (if not already there) and then untar the other repos in clone/ then you need to run ./bin/create_boostrap_links after that it should work the same than the normal instructions... Another possibility is to use git and checkout the tag associated with the release so: git clone git://anongit.freedeskop.org/libreoffice/bootstrap libo cd libo ./autogensh (with the options you want...) review carefully any warnings of 'configure'. in doubt ask. it is much easier to fix these problem at this stage than to reverse-engineer the root cause when the consequences become visible after 2 hours of make... :-) make fetch (that will downalod the other git repos and external libraries tarball) then ./g checkout -b my-own-personal-libreoffice-3.4.3 origin/libreoffice-3.4.3.2 Note: the 'final' 3.4.3 is 3.4.3.2 - that is because 3.4.3 went through to rc release. Note: you can chose what-ever you want for the local name of your branch (i.e the 'my-own-personal-3.4.3') :-) just avoid 'master'. then autogen.sh again (you don't need to pass argument at all this time, the previous set will be automatically used if you do not pass any argument to autogen.sh) then make Norbert ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] gbuild of external libraries and question about apparently special case like zlib, jpeg etc.
I've been working on gbuildification of 'external libraires' taking the approach of untar - patch - configure - post_patch (sometimes it may be easier/useful to patch the result of configure, rather that the input) - make - make install (--prefix=solver) and make uninstall to clean the 'delivered stuff Th make install/uninstall approch seems nice because it avoid the need to enumerate the file to be delivered (hence reduce maintenance cost and mishap). sure it 'deliver' more than we strictly need (like man pages and the like) but overall I think that is still a win. Now, the question is: is there any scenario where one would build the internal library but only use the internal library for some module and the system library for others? iow, why does the current code use a separate name for the internal library, like libzlib or libjpeglib ? is this really (still) needed ? in the same vein, why is there zlib/zlib.h and external/zlib/zlib.h ? if it is still needed then for these modules I guess I will have to 'install' in workdir and still have a 'packaging' step to deliver to solver... or, when possible patch the external library (I did that to zlib to add a configure option to change the library name.. ) ps: I started a ExternalLib.mk extention of gbuild. use will look something like: $(eval $(call gb_ExternalLib_ExternalLib,zlib,autotools)) $(eval $(call gb_ExternalLib_set_src_package,zlib,c735eab2d659a96e5a594c9e8541ad63-zlib-1.2.5.tar.gz)) $(eval $(call gb_ExternalLib_add_patches,zlib, \ zlib/zlib-1.2.5.basename.patch \ )) $(eval $(call gb_ExternalLib_add_cflags,zlib,-fPIC)) $(eval $(call gb_ExternalLib_add_conf_arg,zlib,--zprefix --basename=libloz)) # vim: set noet sw=4 ts=4: note: the 3rd argument of gb_ExternalLib_ExternalLib is meant to allow for the support of different kind of build system (like ant, some custom script, etc.) I am planning also to expend it to have a 'fetch' target so that make fetch would be gbuildified too, and that would also allow for 'as-needed' download of external package, based on autogen settings... Norbert ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] building release tarballs
I am trying to find instruction for how to build the released stable source. I have downloaded the files located at http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/src/3.4.3 and am trying to find further instructions. Where is the process to build from released source instead of from development source control documented? Neil Leathers ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] 3.5 release from QA to point-zero
Hi *, Some time ago there was a discussion about the release for 3.5. The sub-optimal situation with the release of 3.4.0, was food for the discussion on the 3.5 release. Quite a lengthy and interesting discussion at that time (1) I promised to get back on this issue. Goal: take a clear look at what influences the development and QA of 3.5.0, in order to make sure that we do not have the problems as with 3.4.0. I do not want discuss this because I would be convinced that it is necessary to change the planned release-schedule (2) - I am not even making that suggestion. Anyway, not now ;-) I just want to feel a bit comfortable with what we are going to do. So it is good to make a clear picture of the situation, of the items involved. I will make a list (not pretending that it is comprehensive) below. However, of course it is very unlikely that such an effort can lead to some solid scientific prediction (anyway, not before the event ;-) ), it thus serves to get the information and feeling right. Which in itself is important enough. And it might lead to the conclusion that more time between freeze and first RC is needed. Which can be found in either direction of course, and of which an earlier freeze will definitely be preferred. If.. So, items that come to my mind: - number and severity of changes on code how many difficult/basic stuff are touched in these months? We know that when so much is changed, for sure many nasty hidden older bugs will surface.. - How much time can one annoying bug ask? Two day, two weeks? e.g. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40466#c10 - what is the progress in the weak spots in our attention? Base e.g. - what can we expect for new large code chunks in the coming months or integration of some older CWS'es - the increase in the number of people available for testing - how many people start working/testing with master/nightly builds? - how many issues see we from there? - and how fast are those solved? - development in the quality and the use of tools for testing - is attention in testing well spread over Windows / Linux / MacOS ? - are there other releases/tasks that need attention during that time ? - how many people are available for beta-RC testing and fixing bugs ? e.g. the time of the year (Christmas, Western New year) - can we attract many people for beta-testing (prize for the top-5 (clear, useful) issue submitting testers ?) = = [ Shudder ... would one ever dare to plan any release again after this listing ? :-p ] What did I forget? Maybe some can have a major impact consider? Is it a useful approach to think a bit more in detail about these items? Also on the discussion we had before, there was a simple and sound idea from Norbert (3), worth to consider (expand the time between Beta/RC / release on Thursday / QA still need to use Daily Build) Thanks for your feedback, Cor 1) starting here: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-June/014201.html 2) http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan#3.5_release 3) http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-June/014293.html -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Updated [Patch] new BITxxx functions for ODF 1.2
Hi If pushed, these new functions should be advertised in the Release notes. Olivier Em 04-09-2011 09:45, Thorsten Behrens escreveu: l...@pechlaner.at wrote: I've made the new Functions BITAND, BITOR, BITXOR BITRSHIFT and BITLSHIFT,, how declared in the ODF 1.2 specification. Can anyone have a look on this Patches. Wonderful, great stuff - I have to apologize, the many whitespace changes in the calc part of the patch are because of my substandard mentoring - cleaned-up version of the first patch attached. Cheers, -- Thorsten ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice -- Olivier Hallot Founder, Steering Commitee Member - The Document Foundation Voicing the enterprise needs LibreOffice translation leader for Brazilian Portuguese +55-21-8822-8812 ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] gcc/g++ compilation issue in desktop/splash
At 5:23am -0400 Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Caolán McNamara wrote: On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 18:06 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: But then again, it links to libstdc++ ... libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0xb7658000) ... There was a mention of a "/usr/local/bin/g++", which makes me wonder about mismatching libstdc++.so.X. To humour me, what about... rm -rf external/*/lib/* rm -rf solver/*/*/lib/libstdc++* rm -rf solver/*/*/lib/libgcc_s.so* I went ahead and did that with no love. For reference: $ ldd sal/unxlngx6/lib/libuno_sal.so | grep stdc libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/local/lib64/libstdc++.so.6 (0x7f122c7cb000) At my novice gcc level, my research suggests it's to do with including libstdc++ in the build command. I still don't know exactly why the compilation fails with GCC v4.6 (compiled three weeks ago) yet doesn't with GCC v4.4, but I can fix it one of two ways: - $ hash -r $ which gcc g++; gcc --version | head -1; g++ --version | head -1 /usr/local/bin/gcc /usr/local/bin/g++ gcc (GCC) 4.6.1 g++ (GCC) 4.6.1 # fails $ gcc -o .../oosplash [...] # works; rest of build can now finish successfully $ gcc -o .../oosplash [...] -lstdc++ or $ g++ -o .../oosplash [...] - Have others had any issues compiling LO with GCC 4.6? It's frustrating and telling that I'm the only one noticing it. What voodoo have I overlooked? Thanks, Kevin ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] remove build.pl --gmake option refrences from Makefile
Hi Norbert, On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > I know I should use a better email > client than gmail... but until I finally get around to develop a > reasonable proficiency in mutt, extracting patch from inline content > is pretty error prone (line wrapping and other horror stories)). You may want to explore IMAP support for gmail in case you are not aware of it. You can activate it in gmail options. I use it to handle my gmail traffic with Evolution and it's working well for me. Kohei ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] A belated hello
Charles-H. Schulz wrote (04-09-11 16:10) Welcome to LibreOffice, it's good to have you here! + 1. Good to meet again here, Stephan! Cor -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] A belated hello
Hello Stephan, Welcome to LibreOffice, it's good to have you here! Best, Charles. Le 02/09/2011 11:11, Olivier Hallot a écrit : > Welcome Stephan > > Your collaboration is very well appreciated. > > I hope you will enjoy participating in this new era of development of > the OOo codebase at LibreOffice. > > Kind regards > > Olivier > > Em 02-09-2011 04:32, Stephan Bergmann escreveu: >> Hi everyone, >> >> As you might already have noticed, I've started to become active >> around here recently. That's because, since yesterday, I'm an >> employee of Red Hat (though not yet with a proper email address, but >> that will change soon), having the pleasure of reinforcing its great >> LibreOffice team. >> >> In case you don't know me yet, I've been a long time member of the >> Hamburg OOo team, working mostly on the lower layers of the project, >> the UNO stuff, system abstraction, configmgr, building, testing, clean >> code, C++/Java/Posix standards conformance, linkers, whatever… >> >> I hope we'll have fun together over here (at least as much as we used >> to have over at OOo---well, most of the time at least…). And I also >> hope we'll continue to cooperate in good spirit with the folks who >> resurrect OOo now as an Apache incubator project, as well as with all >> the other groups in the larger OOo ecosystem. (Disclosure: I signed >> up as initial committer when that Apache project started this summer, >> and have since been somewhat active there. Lets see how that develops.) >> >> -Stephan >> ___ >> LibreOffice mailing list >> LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice > ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Mailing list content filter (was: Re: (no subject))
Eike Rathke wrote: > > Yep, just adapted the setup accordingly. Note that the surrounding > > messages will still be delivered (that might annoy people who've > > previously had downstream filters for exactly those attachments). > > As me.. > Heh, you asked for it... ;) > Do we need really .zip? Btw, that seems to be a negative list, > disallowing specified extensions, there are umpteen extensions Windows > regards as executable.. wouldn't it be better to have a positive list > instead? > Mailman 2.1.11 does not permit that. If you have more extensions, please list them - otherwise, we can extend the list with each new incident. Wrt. zip, as I said, no strong opinion - maybe others, especially folks working on Windows, want to chime in? Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpQ2Sr65isYN.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] Patch for MarkManager
Hi all,
this is a patch we wrote during the libreoffice hackfest 2011 for
sw/source/core/inc/MarkManager.hxx and sw/source/core/doc/docbm.cxx
which improves speed of mailmerge. Bjoern already knows details so he
might be the one to review the patch... The patch could be applied
under the lgpl.
bye,
Christoph Lutz, Landeshauptstadt München
diff --git a/sw/source/core/doc/docbm.cxx b/sw/source/core/doc/docbm.cxx
index b88de10..65afbdc 100644
--- a/sw/source/core/doc/docbm.cxx
+++ b/sw/source/core/doc/docbm.cxx
@@ -386,6 +386,7 @@ namespace sw { namespace mark
pMarkBase->SetName(getUniqueMarkName(pMarkBase->GetName()));
// register mark
+m_aMarkNamesSet.insert(pMarkBase->GetName());
lcl_InsertMarkSorted(m_vMarks, pMark);
switch(eType)
{
@@ -480,8 +481,10 @@ namespace sw { namespace mark
" - Mark is not in my doc.");
if(io_pMark->GetName() == rNewName)
return true;
-if(findMark(rNewName) != getMarksEnd())
+if(hasMark(rNewName))
return false;
+ m_aMarkNamesSet.erase(dynamic_cast< ::sw::mark::MarkBase* >(io_pMark)->GetName());
+ m_aMarkNamesSet.insert(rNewName);
dynamic_cast< ::sw::mark::MarkBase* >(io_pMark)->SetName(rNewName);
return true;
}
@@ -733,6 +736,7 @@ namespace sw { namespace mark
//it anymore.
pMark_t xHoldPastErase = *aI;
m_vMarks.erase(aI);
+m_aMarkNamesSet.erase(ppMark->get()->GetName());
}
void MarkManager::deleteMark(const IMark* const pMark)
@@ -766,6 +770,7 @@ namespace sw { namespace mark
{
m_vFieldmarks.clear();
m_vBookmarks.clear();
+m_aMarkNamesSet.clear();
#if OSL_DEBUG_LEVEL > 1
for(iterator_t pBkmk = m_vMarks.begin();
pBkmk != m_vMarks.end();
@@ -827,13 +832,13 @@ namespace sw { namespace mark
OSL_ENSURE(rName.getLength(),
""
" - a name should be proposed");
-if(findMark(rName) == getMarksEnd()) return rName;
+if(!hasMark(rName)) return rName;
::rtl::OUStringBuffer sBuf;
::rtl::OUString sTmp;
for(sal_Int32 nCnt = 1; nCnt < SAL_MAX_INT32; nCnt++)
{
sTmp = sBuf.append(rName).append(nCnt).makeStringAndClear();
-if(findMark(sTmp) == getMarksEnd()) break;
+if(!hasMark(sTmp)) break;
}
return sTmp;
}
@@ -845,6 +850,11 @@ namespace sw { namespace mark
sort(m_vFieldmarks.begin(), m_vFieldmarks.end(), &lcl_MarkOrderingByStart);
}
+bool MarkManager::hasMark(const ::rtl::OUString& rName) const
+{
+return (m_aMarkNamesSet.find(rName) != m_aMarkNamesSet.end());
+}
+
}} // namespace ::sw::mark
diff --git a/sw/source/core/inc/MarkManager.hxx b/sw/source/core/inc/MarkManager.hxx
index 415b8e7..1b43ba4 100644
--- a/sw/source/core/inc/MarkManager.hxx
+++ b/sw/source/core/inc/MarkManager.hxx
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
#include
#include
+#include
namespace sw { namespace mark
{
@@ -72,6 +73,7 @@ namespace sw { namespace mark
virtual const_iterator_t getMarksEnd() const;
virtual sal_Int32 getMarksCount() const;
virtual const_iterator_t findMark(const ::rtl::OUString& rName) const;
+virtual bool hasMark(const ::rtl::OUString& rName) const;
// bookmarks
virtual const_iterator_t getBookmarksBegin() const;
@@ -92,6 +94,7 @@ namespace sw { namespace mark
container_t m_vMarks;
container_t m_vBookmarks;
container_t m_vFieldmarks;
+::boost::unordered_set m_aMarkNamesSet;
SwDoc * const m_pDoc;
};
}}
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Updated [Patch] new BITxxx functions for ODF 1.2
l...@pechlaner.at wrote:
> I've made the new Functions BITAND, BITOR, BITXOR BITRSHIFT
> and BITLSHIFT,, how declared in the ODF 1.2 specification. Can anyone
> have a look on this Patches.
>
Wonderful, great stuff - I have to apologize, the many whitespace
changes in the calc part of the patch are because of my substandard
mentoring - cleaned-up version of the first patch attached.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
From 9536eed6be175243f9e55f5715d1fb784a6f5f4f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Wolfgang Pechlaner
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:40:25 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] BITxxx functions for ODF 1.2
---
sc/inc/helpids.h |5 +
sc/qa/unit/ucalc.cxx |5 +
sc/source/core/inc/interpre.hxx |5 +
sc/source/core/tool/interpr1.cxx | 101
sc/source/core/tool/interpr4.cxx |5 +
sc/source/ui/src/scfuncs.src | 156 ++
sc/util/hidother.src |5 +
7 files changed, 282 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sc/inc/helpids.h b/sc/inc/helpids.h
index c80dd1b..b04aa77 100644
--- a/sc/inc/helpids.h
+++ b/sc/inc/helpids.h
@@ -692,3 +692,8 @@
#define HID_FUNC_UNICODE"SC_HID_FUNC_UNICODE"
#define HID_FUNC_UNICHAR"SC_HID_FUNC_UNICHAR"
#define HID_FUNC_NUMBERVALUE"SC_HID_FUNC_NUMBERVALUE"
+#define HID_FUNC_BITAND "SC_HID_FUNC_BITAND"
+#define HID_FUNC_BITOR "SC_HID_FUNC_BITOR"
+#define HID_FUNC_BITXOR "SC_HID_FUNC_BITXOR"
+#define HID_FUNC_BITLSHIFT "SC_HID_FUNC_BITLSHIFT"
+#define HID_FUNC_BITRSHIFT "SC_HID_FUNC_BITRSHIFT"
diff --git a/sc/qa/unit/ucalc.cxx b/sc/qa/unit/ucalc.cxx
index 7430a60..533fbe2 100644
--- a/sc/qa/unit/ucalc.cxx
+++ b/sc/qa/unit/ucalc.cxx
@@ -1742,6 +1742,11 @@ void Test::testFunctionLists()
const char* aLogical[] = {
"AND",
+"BITAND",
+"BITLSHIFT",
+"BITOR",
+"BITRSHIFT",
+"BITXOR",
"FALSE",
"IF",
"NOT",
diff --git a/sc/source/core/inc/interpre.hxx b/sc/source/core/inc/interpre.hxx
index 27027d5..50881d6 100644
--- a/sc/source/core/inc/interpre.hxx
+++ b/sc/source/core/inc/interpre.hxx
@@ -412,6 +412,11 @@ void ScAnd();
void ScOr();
void ScNot();
void ScNeg();
+void ScBitAnd();
+void ScBitOr();
+void ScBitXor();
+void ScBitRshift();
+void ScBitLshift();
void ScPercentSign();
void ScIntersect();
void ScRangeFunc();
diff --git a/sc/source/core/tool/interpr1.cxx b/sc/source/core/tool/interpr1.cxx
index f581ac7..3921e0e 100644
--- a/sc/source/core/tool/interpr1.cxx
+++ b/sc/source/core/tool/interpr1.cxx
@@ -1391,6 +1391,107 @@ void ScInterpreter::ScNeg()
}
+void ScInterpreter::ScBitAnd()
+{
+RTL_LOGFILE_CONTEXT_AUTHOR( aLogger, "sc", "er", "ScInterpreter::ScBitAnd" );
+
+if ( !MustHaveParamCount( GetByte(), 2 ) )
+ return;
+
+ double num1, num2;
+ num1 = GetDouble();
+ num2 = GetDouble();
+ if ((num1 > 281474976710655) or (num1 < 0) or
+ (num2 > 281474976710655) or (num2 < 0)) {
+PushIllegalArgument();
+ }
+
+ PushDouble ((sal_uInt64) num1 & (sal_uInt64) num2);
+}
+
+
+void ScInterpreter::ScBitOr()
+{
+RTL_LOGFILE_CONTEXT_AUTHOR( aLogger, "sc", "er", "ScInterpreter::ScBitOr" );
+
+ if ( !MustHaveParamCount( GetByte(), 2 ) )
+ return;
+
+double num1, num2;
+num1 = GetDouble();
+num2 = GetDouble();
+if ((num1 > 281474976710655) or (num1 < 0) or
+(num2 > 281474976710655) or (num2 < 0)) {
+ PushIllegalArgument();
+}
+
+PushDouble ((sal_uInt64) num1 | (sal_uInt64) num2);
+}
+
+
+void ScInterpreter::ScBitXor()
+{
+RTL_LOGFILE_CONTEXT_AUTHOR( aLogger, "sc", "er", "ScInterpreter::ScBitXor" );
+
+if ( !MustHaveParamCount( GetByte(), 2 ) )
+ return;
+
+double num1, num2;
+num1 = GetDouble();
+num2 = GetDouble();
+if ((num1 > 281474976710655) or (num1 < 0) or
+(num2 > 281474976710655) or (num2 < 0)) {
+ PushIllegalArgument();
+}
+
+PushDouble ((sal_uInt64) num1 ^ (sal_uInt64) num2);
+}
+
+
+void ScInterpreter::ScBitLshift()
+{
+RTL_LOGFILE_CONTEXT_AUTHOR( aLogger, "sc", "er", "ScInterpreter::ScBitLshift" );
+
+if ( !MustHaveParamCount( GetByte(), 2 ) )
+ return;
+
+sal_uInt64 erg;
+sal_Int32 ishift = GetDouble();
+double num = GetDouble();
+if ((num > 281474976710655) or (num < 0)) {
+PushIllegalArgument();
+}
+if (ishift < 0) {
+ erg = (sal_uInt64) num >> -ishift;
+} else {
+ erg = (sal_uInt64) num << ishift;
+}
+PushDouble (erg);
+}
+
+void ScInterpreter::ScBitRshift()
+{
+RTL_LOGFILE_CONTEXT_AUTHOR( aLogger, "sc", "er", "ScInterpreter::ScBitRshift" );
+
+if ( !MustHaveParamCount( GetByte(), 2 ) )
+ return;
+sal_uInt64 erg;
Re: [Libreoffice] (no subject)
Hi Thorsten, On Saturday, 2011-09-03 18:31:57 +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > > Can we do something against letting all those .exe .scr .zip etc. > > attachments pass through? > > > Yep, just adapted the setup accordingly. Note that the surrounding > messages will still be delivered (that might annoy people who've > previously had downstream filters for exactly those attachments). As me.. > Oh, .zip is still permitted - no strong opinion on that one, though. Do we need really .zip? Btw, that seems to be a negative list, disallowing specified extensions, there are umpteen extensions Windows regards as executable.. wouldn't it be better to have a positive list instead? Eike -- PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication. Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Bringing some sanity to interline spacing
Hi Kohei, On Friday, 2011-09-02 23:53:51 -0400, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > > I guess the major fear isn't that your code is wrong, it's probably > > right, it's what stuff relying on the old way of doing things will > > change. > > So, I was wondering why the default row height of a new Calc document > has suddenly shrunk from the old 0.18" (in 3.4) to 0.15" on master. > After looking at various places, I have eventually truck it down to this > particular change. Also, the heights of the controls are overall > noticeably shorter. > > But based on what I'm seeing on this thread, I take that the new glyph > metric calculation algorithm is the correct way? If so, then we'll have > to make some adjustments to some of the size sensitive areas to bring > things back to the way they were prior to the change. One place I > definitely have to adjust is the default row height, which is now > noticeably smaller. Yes, that would indeed be needed. Probably also import/export from/to Excel needs new row-height calculation, as they specify row height in fractions of font height, IIRC. > But before going there, I just need to make sure that we are on the same > page wrt keeping the new algorithm and moving on to fixing whatever > needs fixing. I'm not sure we want to keep the new algorithm as default, given that there are probably many areas in several applications to be adapted to the new behavior. Maybe best we make that an option until necessary changes are done. Opinions? Eike -- PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication. Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-commits] .: i18npool/inc i18npool/Library_localedata_euro.mk i18npool/source svtools/source
Hi Andras, On Saturday, 2011-09-03 02:34:32 -0700, Andras Timar wrote: > i18npool/source/localedata/data/an_ES.xml | 358 > ++ > > add an_ES (Aragonese) locale data Compiling that gave: Warning: Time100SecSeparator is different from DecimalSeparator, this may be correct or not. Intended? Warning: Don't forget to adapt corresponding FormatCode elements when changing separators. Warning: QuotationStart may be wrong: U+201C “ Warning: QuotationEnd may be wrong: U+201D ” Warning: DoubleQuotationStart may be wrong: U+2018 ‘ Warning: DoubleQuotationEnd may be wrong: U+2019 ’ I exchanged Quotation(Start|End) and DoubleQuotation(Start|End), but I'm not sure about the use of '.' Time100SecSeparator whereas DecimalSeparator is ',' Is that intentional? Eike -- PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication. Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [Bug 37361] LibreOffice 3.5 most annoying bugs
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37361 --- Comment #7 from Cor Nouws 2011-09-04 04:11:55 PDT --- nominate Bug 39313 - XTableRows.removeByIndex and also symply remove Row / Column crashes Libo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Use a custom string to make numbering more flexible
Mohammad Elahi wrote: > A link which I found exactly elaborate it: > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Number_labels#Label_generation_in_WW > Any way do not know whether it has been implemented, I didn't find any thing > in "Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version 1.2 > (17 March 2011)". > If this improves interop, the ODF TC is usually happy to consider such a proposal. The usual way is to include the new tag under a non-OASIS namespace, then seek standards approval, ship some products with the extended functionality concurrently, and eventually put it under the proper ODF namespace (when a new ODF version is out). Let's work on the details once you've a prototype patch running, ok? Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpLRDWSaAYVY.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Problem with embedded images
Hi, tka0330 wrote (03-09-11 14:43) Here is the bug report with an attachment: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=50866 And this is the issue: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40599 -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] [GSoC 2011][svgexport][PATCH] Fixed a buf in the JavaScript animation engine
Marco wrote: > I attached the JavaScript presentation engine used for the last patch > I sent to you, except that I reverted the change related to Open > Office legal notice. > I attached also the python script I used for generating the C++ > header, at present it works in the following way: > Great, thanks a lot! > You are free to modify the python script as you like, for adapting > it to the automated header generation process, and to append any > legal notice you think appropriate. > Done - put the std::header there, and removed the oracle blurp for the generated svgscript.hxx - it's redundant, the actual copyrightable content is now in presentation_engine.js. With that, all pushed - good work! Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpgAsjAaZUL5.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [REVIEW-3-4] Fix leak in pdf export
Hi there, Andor kindly fixed $subject (that got independently fixed on master) - could someone please review, sign-off & push to -3-4? Thanks, -- Thorsten From bbd13ce30ac4f7e8065d58e830206adfe079bbd5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andor Ertsey Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 11:43:45 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Fix leak in pdf export. This fixes i#116448 - SwViewOption was allocated but never freed during pdf export - killed mass document exporting via OOM eventually. --- sw/source/ui/app/swmodul1.cxx |2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/sw/source/ui/app/swmodul1.cxx b/sw/source/ui/app/swmodul1.cxx index 1429bc1..82db1af 100644 --- a/sw/source/ui/app/swmodul1.cxx +++ b/sw/source/ui/app/swmodul1.cxx @@ -220,6 +220,8 @@ void SwModule::ApplyUsrPref(const SwViewOption &rUsrPref, SwView* pActView, // in the end the Idle-Flag is set again pPref->SetIdle(sal_True); + +delete pViewOpt; } void SwModule::ApplyUserMetric( FieldUnit eMetric, sal_Bool bWeb ) -- 1.7.3.4 pgpEnOikEyExD.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [Bug 37361] LibreOffice 3.5 most annoying bugs
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37361 Rainer Bielefeld changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||40615 --- Comment #6 from Rainer Bielefeld 2011-09-04 02:48:30 PDT --- Nominate "Bug 40615 - PDF: Most of contents missing, wrong PDF syntax": Very basic function completely broken, WRITER would be unusable for very many users. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [Bug 35673] LibreOffice 3.4 most annoying bugs
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35673 vitriol changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||40571 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [Bug 35673] LibreOffice 3.4 most annoying bugs
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35673 vitriol changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|40571 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] [Bug 35673] LibreOffice 3.4 most annoying bugs
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35673 vitriol changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||40571 --- Comment #196 from vitriol 2011-09-04 02:39:38 PDT --- Nominating Bug 40571 - UI EDITING Crash when modifying defined name. Crash and regression. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] [PUSHED] remove build.pl --gmake option refrences from Makefile
On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 09:05:27PM -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > Could you be kind enough to re-send these patch as attachments, it > would make my life easier yeah, I know I should use a better email > client than gmail... but until I finally get around to develop a > reasonable proficiency in mutt, extracting patch from inline content > is pretty error prone (line wrapping and other horror stories)). > thanks. No need for that, pushed. pgpD8C7Ol9myx.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] UNO related crashes on NetBSD
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 04:06:39PM +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 09:05 +0200, Francois Tigeot wrote: > > > > The latest -master version crashes reliably on NetBSD (i386 and amd64). > > We're sure that its the LibO side that changed right, i.e. some earlier > version of LibO with same compiler is ok. I'm not sure of anything yet. The compiler has changed from gcc 4.1 to 4.5.3 > Seeing as it affects both x86 and x86_64 that would *seem* to rule out a > bug in a specific uno bridge seeing as there's separate bridges. The situation has only changed for x86_64, i386 was already broken in July. > Seeing as the test didn't actually say anything about what's wrong, its > possibly not something specific that this test "tests", but something > more fundamental which is expects to work. > > Can you build i18npool from scratch ? IIRC there's a saxparser binary > there which does far less than the uno test does, but needs certain > similar initial working magic smoke to run correctly. I'm giving it a try; I will also certainly add some modifications to the NetBSD gbuild configuration. > Attached is a patch to get the debugger into the testtools tests. With > symbols enabled, do "build" in testtools, gdb should wait for you to > type run, bt, the usual drill. Thanks Caolán, I'll be sure to run this. -- Francois Tigeot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
