Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#39346) Dithering and smooth graphics should be toggleable
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39346 > Ulrik Sverdrup wrote: > http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39346 > > > Comparing 2.1 beta 4 to 2.0, 2.1 looks better because of changed > drawing code. 2.1 has smoohter edges and looks better. > > Significan is however the big regression in drawing performance > between 2.0 and 2.1. In 2.1, right-clicking around to move the map is > painfully slow compared to 2.0 (where it is adequately quick!). > > I think this should be treated like a regression. Just like we have a > checkbox for "Better for of war drawing", please instate a toggle for > "dithering" (or otherwise smooth graphics), if that can improve > drawing performance. it would be greatly appreciated. > > For me 2.1 is a great step forward, also in usability all around. > Graphics is nothing compared to this, and because of that I would like > 2.1 to be as snappy as 2.0 (with amplio) Amplio is not gonna be as fast as trident or isotrident; this is unavoidable. There ARE a lot of configurable options in the graphics section. Does playing with them improve things at all? -jason ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#39344) Crash in 2.1beta4, SIGSEGV with 0x0fe16fec in strlen () from /lib/libc.so.6
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39344 > 2007/4/17, Jason Dorje Short <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39344 > > > Ulrik Sverdrup wrote: > > > I tried compiling current svn and trying the civserver with the same > > savegame, and it still crashes! > > Oops, seems there was another instance of the bug (PR#39328). Can you > still reproduce the crash (with SVN 2.1) now? > > -jason > > > It seems to be fixed now. The crash is not reproducible by the former 100% crashing save. Now it doesn't crash and I can advance to the next turn (every time I try.) ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#39346) Dithering and smooth graphics should be toggleable
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39346 > Comparing 2.1 beta 4 to 2.0, 2.1 looks better because of changed drawing code. 2.1 has smoohter edges and looks better. Significan is however the big regression in drawing performance between 2.0 and 2.1. In 2.1, right-clicking around to move the map is painfully slow compared to 2.0 (where it is adequately quick!). I think this should be treated like a regression. Just like we have a checkbox for "Better for of war drawing", please instate a toggle for "dithering" (or otherwise smooth graphics), if that can improve drawing performance. it would be greatly appreciated. For me 2.1 is a great step forward, also in usability all around. Graphics is nothing compared to this, and because of that I would like 2.1 to be as snappy as 2.0 (with amplio) ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#39344) Crash in 2.1beta4, SIGSEGV with 0x0fe16fec in strlen () from /lib/libc.so.6
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39344 > Ulrik Sverdrup wrote: > I tried compiling current svn and trying the civserver with the same > savegame, and it still crashes! Oops, seems there was another instance of the bug (PR#39328). Can you still reproduce the crash (with SVN 2.1) now? -jason ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#39328) Reproducible Crash When Changing Tech Goal (2.1.0-b4 and SVN Head)
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39328 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39328 > > > Hi again, > > Jason Short wrote: >> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39328 > >> >> The current code is clearly wrong. The va_arg may be implemented as a >> pointer rather than an inline array and so passing it multiple times to >> vsnprintf will generate garbage results on some platforms while working >> on others. > > I doubt it matters whether there is an array of varargs structs or a > linked list of them. With an array, if you use an index too far beyond > the end, you will also get a segfault. The real problem is that the > array index or linked list current pointer is not reset to the beginning > after vsprintf et al. are used. > >> Nothing I've read indicates that va_start can be called multiple times >> within the same function, though. > > Allow me to requote from the man pages for the GNU libc implementation > of va_start(3): > > "Each invocation of va_start() must be matched by a corresponding > invocation of va_end() in the same function. After > the call va_end(ap) the variable ap is undefined. Multiple > transversals of the list, each bracketed by va_start() and > va_end() are possible." Clearly you have a different version of glibc than me. My manual page does not mention multiple calls to va_start. What it does say is An obvious implementation would have a va_list be a pointer to the stack frame of the variadic function. In such a setup (by far the most common) there seems nothing against an assignment va_list aq = ap; clearly my glibc has such an implementation such that passing the va_arg to vsnprintf amounts to a copy of it. Yours does not, hence a crash. However I do not trust a mere manpage to say that va_start may be called multiple times. Clearly in that implementation that is the case - but if it's not guaranteed by C89/C99 then we should not be relying on it. >> So I'm applying the patch as-is. > > You apparently applied the original patch and not the modified one that > I later submitted. The modified one had an additional fix for an > identical problem in another place in the same source file. That problem > also caused crashes. Attached to this message is a patch for that problem. Applied now. Think that is the cause of 39344? -jason ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#39328) Reproducible Crash When Changing Tech Goal (2.1.0-b4 and SVN Head)
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39328 >
Hi again,
Jason Short wrote:
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39328 >
>
> The current code is clearly wrong. The va_arg may be implemented as a
> pointer rather than an inline array and so passing it multiple times to
> vsnprintf will generate garbage results on some platforms while working
> on others.
I doubt it matters whether there is an array of varargs structs or a
linked list of them. With an array, if you use an index too far beyond
the end, you will also get a segfault. The real problem is that the
array index or linked list current pointer is not reset to the beginning
after vsprintf et al. are used.
> Nothing I've read indicates that va_start can be called multiple times
> within the same function, though.
Allow me to requote from the man pages for the GNU libc implementation
of va_start(3):
"Each invocation of va_start() must be matched by a corresponding
invocation of va_end() in the same function. After
the call va_end(ap) the variable ap is undefined. Multiple
transversals of the list, each bracketed by va_start() and
va_end() are possible."
> So I'm applying the patch as-is.
You apparently applied the original patch and not the modified one that
I later submitted. The modified one had an additional fix for an
identical problem in another place in the same source file. That problem
also caused crashes. Attached to this message is a patch for that problem.
Eric
Index: server/plrhand.c
===
--- server/plrhand.c(revision 12924)
+++ server/plrhand.c(working copy)
@@ -768,14 +768,14 @@
{
va_list args;
- va_start(args, format);
players_iterate(other_player) {
+va_start(args, format);
if (!players_on_same_team(pplayer, other_player)) {
continue;
}
vnotify_conn(other_player->connections, ptile, event, format, args);
+va_end(args);
} players_iterate_end;
- va_end(args);
}
/
___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
