El dv 23 de 04 de 2010 a les 16:38 +0200, en/na Jacob Nordfalk va escriure: > > > 2010/4/23 Francis Tyers <[email protected]> > El dv 23 de 04 de 2010 a les 16:24 +0200, en/na Kevin Brubeck > Unhammer > va escriure: > > Hi, > > > > I thought I should mention this bug (or, these bugs?) > > > > > http://bugs.apertium.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104 > > > > on the mailing list since it can introduce a hang in > lt-proc. > > > > > > I came across it while messing around with an XSLT to remove > certain > > <e>'s from pardefs. > > > > The first issue reported there is odd but not critical; you > can get > > spurious analyses if you have a pardef calling two pardefs, > where the > > last one has only a single, empty <e>. > > > > The second issue, however, can lead to hangs. Neither > lt-proc nor > > lt-comp nor validation reports anything here (so watch out > if you have > > empty elements like this). > > > > > It's worth noting that this happens with both lttoolbox and > lttoolbox-java. > > > Of course. The Java version is 100% compatible. > > > BTW Jim and I found out that just adding a flag (-client) speeds up > the Java version considerably. Its now generally twice as slow as the > C++ version. > > > > Should I have a look or will Sergio do it? >
Could you take a look at the Java version to see where the bug is ? Fran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
