[dev] Corruption of file URL's with Hebrew
Hi list-members, I'm trying in Windows to open an OOo document that has Hebrew in its filename by double-clicking on the document in Windows explorer. OOo doesn't open the document. This is not a problem in OOo 1.1.5, and it's not a problem in 2.x with files that have only Latin in the filename. I looked in a debugger at the CommandLineArgs constructor, and I found that the value of aCmdLineArgs is: -o|file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/ooo/My%20Documents/Tkos/2005_11_06_%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F.odt| In the file URL, the various Hebrew letters all have taken on the value %3F, even though they are not all the same Hebrew letter. Can anyone guide me about why the filename has been corrupted? Thanks, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Corruption of file URL's with Hebrew
Hi list-members, This apparently has to do with the default language for non-Unicode programs which is set in Control Panel's Regional Options/Advanced. When I set the default language to Hebrew, the file opens properly. How can I get this to work even if the default non-Unicode language is not Hebrew (like it did in 1.1.5)? Alan Alan Yaniger wrote: Hi list-members, I'm trying in Windows to open an OOo document that has Hebrew in its filename by double-clicking on the document in Windows explorer. OOo doesn't open the document. This is not a problem in OOo 1.1.5, and it's not a problem in 2.x with files that have only Latin in the filename. I looked in a debugger at the CommandLineArgs constructor, and I found that the value of aCmdLineArgs is: -o|file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/ooo/My%20Documents/Tkos/2005_11_06_%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F.odt| In the file URL, the various Hebrew letters all have taken on the value %3F, even though they are not all the same Hebrew letter. Can anyone guide me about why the filename has been corrupted? Thanks, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Corruption of file URL's with Hebrew
Hi Alan, Alan Yaniger wrote: Hi list-members, This apparently has to do with the default language for non-Unicode programs which is set in Control Panel's Regional Options/Advanced. When I set the default language to Hebrew, the file opens properly. How can I get this to work even if the default non-Unicode language is not Hebrew (like it did in 1.1.5)? %3F is the question mark - the file name obviously was converted to a URL with the wrong encoding. Did you really debug the command line OOo got from the system? Then where did the URL come from, I doub that Windows will convert file names to URLs. Which Windows did you use? Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] External header guards
Jens-Heiner Rechtien schrieb: Jan Holesovsky wrote: On Monday 18 December 2006 11:46, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Kai Backman wrote: Aah. Let me rephrase. Are -you- really sure the external include guard optimization provides enough benefit on all the compilers we are using to make it worthwhile to degrade readability by adding noise? ok, seems we've deadlocked here. ;-) Point is, the vast majority of the code uses that idiom as of today, and I'm reluctant to advice people of the contrary [...] - if people think it's ok to start removing external header guards right now (because it will take years to clean them up anyway), I'd be fine with that, too. I hate them that much that I am willing to do a script that would do the removal ;-) What is the platform/compiler that probably needs this, please? Any volunteer to do a comparison of the with and without compilation times? The one remaining compiler is Microsoft Visual Studio. There are varying reports if this compiler has a build-in include guard optimization or not. According to Oliver Bolte, in version 8, the MSVC compiler uses the trick to connect a define (of an internal include guard) with the correlating header, which is one possble way to implement this, but v.7 does not. Anyway, I would go with Thorstens remark: We will need years to remove the existing external include guards anyway. IMHO there is no significant performance gain by adding more of them now. So my Suggestion -- is: From today on, we use internal include guards only. Until this has a measurable effect on our build times, we will use a newer version of MSVC. What do you think? Nikolai - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] External header guards
Hi Nikolai, On Thursday 21 December 2006 13:17, Nikolai Pretzell wrote: The one remaining compiler is Microsoft Visual Studio. There are varying reports if this compiler has a build-in include guard optimization or not. According to Oliver Bolte, in version 8, the MSVC compiler uses the trick to connect a define (of an internal include guard) with the correlating header, which is one possble way to implement this, Good news :-) but v.7 does not. Anyway, I would go with Thorstens remark: We will need years to remove the existing external include guards anyway. IMHO there is no significant performance gain by adding more of them now. I hope that it won't be years. The working script is here: http://www.go-oo.org/ooo-build/bin/strip-guards It removes the guards the safe way - just those that correspond with the header they are guarding. I'm just running a test compilation (needs few hand fixes) now; when I'm done I'll give it Thorsten to test with MSVC 7. If no big regression appears it could be a matter of one CWS ;-) So my Suggestion -- is: From today on, we use internal include guards only. Until this has a measurable effect on our build times, we will use a newer version of MSVC. What do you think? Sounds great :-) Regards, Jan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] External header guards
Nikolai Pretzell wrote: Jens-Heiner Rechtien schrieb: Jan Holesovsky wrote: On Monday 18 December 2006 11:46, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Kai Backman wrote: Aah. Let me rephrase. Are -you- really sure the external include guard optimization provides enough benefit on all the compilers we are using to make it worthwhile to degrade readability by adding noise? ok, seems we've deadlocked here. ;-) Point is, the vast majority of the code uses that idiom as of today, and I'm reluctant to advice people of the contrary [...] - if people think it's ok to start removing external header guards right now (because it will take years to clean them up anyway), I'd be fine with that, too. I hate them that much that I am willing to do a script that would do the removal ;-) What is the platform/compiler that probably needs this, please? Any volunteer to do a comparison of the with and without compilation times? The one remaining compiler is Microsoft Visual Studio. There are varying reports if this compiler has a build-in include guard optimization or not. According to Oliver Bolte, in version 8, the MSVC compiler uses the trick to connect a define (of an internal include guard) with the correlating header, which is one possble way to implement this, but v.7 does not. Anyway, I would go with Thorstens remark: We will need years to remove the existing external include guards anyway. IMHO there is no significant performance gain by adding more of them now. So my Suggestion -- is: From today on, we use internal include guards only. Until this has a measurable effect on our build times, we will use a newer version of MSVC. What do you think? i would appreciate this decision as well and would change the cppumaker accordingly if we will do it this way in the future. Maybe someone has time to create a clever script to remove the external guards via script in minutes ;-) Juergen Nikolai - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] External header guards
On 12/21/06, Nikolai Pretzell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is: From today on, we use internal include guards only. ... What do you think? Sounds good to me. :-) Kohei - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] External header guards
Thorsten Behrens wrote: Hi Kendy, you wrote: I hate them that much that I am willing to do a script that would do the removal ;-) What is the platform/compiler that probably needs this, please? Any volunteer to do a comparison of the with and without compilation times? That would be msvc 7.1 Go ahead with the script (I'd take that anyway, once we switch to 8.0) - I can do the timings. Please remember to do the timings against remote volumes. Thanks Heiner -- Jens-Heiner Rechtien [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] External header guards
Jens-Heiner Rechtien [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please remember to do the timings against remote volumes. Hi Heiner, sure - I'll take the worst-case scenario with remote solver remote modules. Cheers, -- Thorsten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
