https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113273
Terrence Enger <[email protected]> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |[email protected]
--- Comment #16 from Terrence Enger <[email protected]> ---
Created attachment 162368
--> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=162368&action=edit
bibisect in lo-linux-dbgutil-daily-till52
Working in bibisect repository lo-linux-dbgutil-daily-till52$ on
debian-buster, I see that the bug entered LO somewhere in the 65 or so
commits:
commit s-h date
-------- -------- -------------------
good 09325a16 4ab31493 2016-05-24 00:40:36
bad 6f9d5d29 44326f8d 2015-05-24 21:19:42
Observations and questions arising:
(*) I used a separate UserInstallation directory, which I named on the
command line.
(*) I followed the steps in comment 8 once; then for each probe I
followed the steps in comment 12.
(*) The crashes I observed were "Signal 6". In a recent local-built
soffice.bin, comparing my backtrace to Julien Nabet's attachment,
I see at the top 14 additional frames of signal handling; after
that there are 36 frames of same-named functions.
(*) If I open the .odt by clicking the thumbnail in Start Center, LO
prompts "update or keep old style" (and possibly crashes upon
closing) only the second time I open the file.
(*) The "update or keep old style" message cites template
'modèle_test1', but the file I downloaded and from which I created
the .odt is 'modele_test1.ott'.
I wonder if this is central to the bug?
I am removing keyword bibisectRequest and adding bibisected.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug._______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
