Re: Bug "Out of date"
On 8 Mar 2011 "Steve Fryatt" wrote: > On Tue, March 8, 2011 3:32 pm, Daniel Silverstone wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 03:28:35PM +, Dr Peter Young wrote: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=464312&aid=3201428&g roup_id=51719 >>> >>> Yes, does exactly what druck describes here; r11927 and RISC OS 5.16. >>> Gobbles up the memory, too. >> >> This bug is not reproducable on Linux/GTK and appears to be related to >> frames. Unfortunately it'll need to wait for one of the RISC OS enabled >> developers to have a gander. > Unfortunately, despite following the instructions to the letter, this RISC > OS enabled developer couldn't reproduce the problem on 5.16 either. > A log file from an affected copy of NetSurf might help (although that's > not a promise that anything will get fixed soon: it depends on what's > wrong and what the fix entails). Don't post it to this list, though... > ;-) Tried to repeat it here, but it behaved this time, in spite of using large amounts of memory. I'll keep the logfile, though, in case it's of interest. With best wishes, Peter. -- Peter \ / zfc Lu \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52 and \/ ____ \ England. family / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk / \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \__ pnyo...@ormail.co.uk
Re: Bug "Out of date"
In article <4881.109.234.200.50.1299606471.squirrel@91.84.211.154>, Steve Fryatt wrote: > A log file from an affected copy of NetSurf might help With suppress_curl_debug set to 0 in the Choices file before NetSurf is run. -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: Bug "Out of date"
On 8 Mar, Dr Peter Young wrote: > Yes, does exactly what druck describes here; r11927 and RISC OS 5.16. r11894 here - takes ages to expand the contents of the frame, but after it has expanded NetSurf shows as using 0% of CPU, according to TaskUsage. > Gobbles up the memory, too. Yes, that does happen here. about 4MB in app space, and over 50MB in DA. -- Brian Howlett - Isn't it strange that the same people that laugh at gypsy fortune tellers take economists seriously?
Re: Bug "Out of date"
On Tue, March 8, 2011 3:32 pm, Daniel Silverstone wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 03:28:35PM +, Dr Peter Young wrote: >> > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=464312&aid=3201428&g >> > roup_id=51719 >> >> Yes, does exactly what druck describes here; r11927 and RISC OS 5.16. >> Gobbles up the memory, too. > > This bug is not reproducable on Linux/GTK and appears to be related to > frames. Unfortunately it'll need to wait for one of the RISC OS enabled > developers to have a gander. Unfortunately, despite following the instructions to the letter, this RISC OS enabled developer couldn't reproduce the problem on 5.16 either. A log file from an affected copy of NetSurf might help (although that's not a promise that anything will get fixed soon: it depends on what's wrong and what the fix entails). Don't post it to this list, though... ;-) -- Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England Wakefield Acorn & RISC OS Show Saturday 16 April 2011 http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/ http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk/
Re: Bug "Out of date"
On 8 Mar 2011 David J. Ruck wrote: > On 08/03/2011 08:38, John-Mark Bell wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 08:30 +, David J. Ruck wrote: >>> What is the reasoning behind marking a bug "out of date"? Particularly >>> when it is easily reproducible with the last test build by one click on >>> the given URL. >> >> Simple: it was 4 years old and I couldn't reproduce it (and still can't >> fwiw) > Well maybe someone else can. > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=464312&aid=3201428&g > roup_id=51719 It takes a long time "converting 1379990 bytes", but then expands the navigation menu. It also takes a lot of processing time when you close the window. However I don't see the problem reported on the tracker. (r11931, KRPC 300MHz, 128MB, OS 6.16) -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a "user experience" - I just want stuff that works.
Re: Bug "Out of date"
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 03:28:35PM +, Dr Peter Young wrote: > > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=464312&aid=3201428&g > > roup_id=51719 > Yes, does exactly what druck describes here; r11927 and RISC OS 5.16. > Gobbles up the memory, too. This bug is not reproducable on Linux/GTK and appears to be related to frames. Unfortunately it'll need to wait for one of the RISC OS enabled developers to have a gander. D. -- Daniel Silverstone http://www.netsurf-browser.org/ PGP mail accepted and encouraged.Key Id: 3CCE BABE 206C 3B69
Re: Bug "Out of date"
On 8 Mar 2011 "David J. Ruck" wrote: > On 08/03/2011 08:38, John-Mark Bell wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 08:30 +, David J. Ruck wrote: >>> What is the reasoning behind marking a bug "out of date"? Particularly >>> when it is easily reproducible with the last test build by one click on >>> the given URL. >> >> Simple: it was 4 years old and I couldn't reproduce it (and still can't >> fwiw) > Well maybe someone else can. > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=464312&aid=3201428&g > roup_id=51719 Yes, does exactly what druck describes here; r11927 and RISC OS 5.16. Gobbles up the memory, too. With best wishes, Peter. -- Peter \ / zfc Lu \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52 and \/ ____ \ England. family / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk / \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \__ pnyo...@ormail.co.uk
Re: Bug "Out of date"
On 08/03/2011 08:38, John-Mark Bell wrote: On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 08:30 +, David J. Ruck wrote: What is the reasoning behind marking a bug "out of date"? Particularly when it is easily reproducible with the last test build by one click on the given URL. Simple: it was 4 years old and I couldn't reproduce it (and still can't fwiw) Well maybe someone else can. https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=464312&aid=3201428&group_id=51719 -- David J. Ruck email: dr...@druck.org.uk phone: +44(0)7974 108301
Re: Bug "Out of date"
On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 08:30 +, David J. Ruck wrote: > What is the reasoning behind marking a bug "out of date"? Particularly > when it is easily reproducible with the last test build by one click on > the given URL. Simple: it was 4 years old and I couldn't reproduce it (and still can't fwiw) John.
Bug "Out of date"
What is the reasoning behind marking a bug "out of date"? Particularly when it is easily reproducible with the last test build by one click on the given URL. The bug in question was a serious one which caused NetSurf to use almost 100% of CPU, not just during rendering but after rendering had stopped, and even the window on that website had been closed. The only remedy being to kill the process. -- David J. Ruck email: dr...@druck.org.uk phone: +44(0)7974 108301
